explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3071: Decay Chain

2025-04-07T08:24:56Z

172.70.160.219:

... should have gone down to the 5S. That was really rock bottom... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.36|172.70.114.36]] 01:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: My old SE was a real workhorse. Small enough to comfortably use in one hand, power button on the top so I don't have to worry about turning it off when gripping it, headphone jack, black background on the reboot screen, and twice as much storage as my current iphone 7. It kept working until the screen cracked and glass was peeling out of the screen, and several months beyond that, when the screen just went blank and refused to turn on. [[User:Firestar233|guess who]] ([[User talk:Firestar233|if you desire conversing]] | [[Special:Contributions/Firestar233|what i have done]]) 05:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

No april fools' comic? Sad. [[User:Onestay|Onestay]] ([[User talk:Onestay|talk]]) 01:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Takes some time. Might still be one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 02:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, escape speed was late for 18 days, maybe the new interactive comic will be the same [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 05:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes we could still hope for a treat. However, last time the election did not go as he wished he did not make any [[:Category:April fools' comics|April fools' comics]] as he was quite [[Sad]] at the time, it was in 2017 see this [[1818:_Rayleigh_Scattering#No_April_Fools.27_Day_comic_in_2017|trivia]]... It might be even worse this time. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 12:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::As anyone with liberal political views (which includes me), I think this is the worst it could've possibly gone. Might not get an april fools comic for the next four years. [[User:DollarStoreBa'al|DollarStoreBa'al]] ([[User talk:DollarStoreBa'al|talk]]) 13:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::I SERIOUSLY hope there is one.My opinion is that there is [[2871: Definitely|defineatly]] one.--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 13:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Probably will be one 2017 is a long time ago(relatively) [[User:Aprilfoolsupdate!|Aprilfoolsupdate!]] ([[User talk:Aprilfoolsupdate!|talk]]) 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::Just because the last absence was eight years ago, under a similar political climate, I can't see that being a prime factor behind not doing an April Fool. If the circumstances alone makes him not think up anything funny, he'd be drying up in the realm of normal comics. (And, please, before anyone says that this is happening, I shall pre-emptively disagree; business as usual, IMO, by which I mean it's all still good.)
::::::If it's a large-scale flight of imagination that's not happened, that doesn't even need joyous thoughts every day. In fact, a degree of depression could well drive some of the development as a coping mechanism.
::::::On the whole, though, I'd say that any reason why (if it happens/doesn't happen) there's nothing this year is the sheer amount of effort required. Conceptualising, planning, coding and drawing seem to be the main units of work. All but the latter can be helped by a team, but certainly the core of the latter really needs to be kept personal, even if some flood-filling or careful recompositing can be farmed out to others he trusts to not spoil his style.
::::::There was a tradition in the UK for the {{w|Morecambe and Wise}} Christmas Show to be ''the'' thing to watch (as an example), and it was probably the most stressful show for the writers and stars because it got to the stage that it had such a reputation for being entertaining (by the standards of the era - but repeats, even decades later, still are enjoyed...) that it ''had'' to be good.
::::::I can quite imagine that Randall is in a similar position of only just getting one April Fool over with, and wondering whatever he's going to do to follow it (never mind any other non-Fool specials he's also working towards). Even while feeding us our regular three comics a week, like an insatiable chick in a nest demanding more and more food from its parents.
::::::I even have had a few ideas of my own, that I'd happily contribute (and could even help with, having satisfied myself with proofs of concept), but I respect him too much to bother him with unsolicited advice from someone he doesn't know. Plus, I'd rather get pleasingly surprised by the true Randall spirit (or none at all) than feel like I forced him into doing ''my'' thing. (Or, worse, being to close to his own ideas, and deciding that he can't do that any more, lest it look like he took my concept and ''pretended'' it was already in his mind.)
::::::I actually don't know how he set about prior works (solo or collaboration), but I'd have to already be far closer to him (socially, or perhaps with prior professional outreaches, neith of which are on the horizon) to have a proper idea. With everything he may have on his plate (''What If? 3'' and/or other books, more YouTubed conversions, some decidedly non-Fool future specials that he might have plans for, the continuing thrice-weekly comics...) maybe there just wasn't a way to give us want we're waiting for this year (maybe that was 2017's basic issue?). Or maybe he's ''almost there'', just not yet.
::::::He won't read this (that's ok, I don't read his Twitter - though that's mostly because it's been made too awkward to read things there without an account on the now-X, and I'm well past the point that I might have ever considered signing up) so this is not for his benefit, but for those who seem to think it's a cut'n'dried contract that he ''will'' entertain you. When he will only as much as he feels he can. With the caveat of "horses for courses", as he'll never please everybody, however much he might try.
::::::Be calm, fellow xkcd community members. ''Maybe'' we're due a truly humdingery ''Summertime'' special release (or Halloween, or Christmas, or next April (twice as good as a normal year!), or just at some random time that may or may not coincide with a book launch, or... If we already knew about it, would it be as nice a surprise..? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.59|172.71.178.59]] 16:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I thought it obvious that this presidency ''was'' the joke? Did not everyone get the joke? I mean, maybe it's in bad taste, but the irony is ''right there''. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

A quick search for "newest iPhone" gave me that 16 (various models) is the newest. That is, if it's newer than 15. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.15.141|172.68.15.141]] 04:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Most stars only produce Bell rotary phones, perhaps producing touch tone or even cordless phones briefly as they move off the main sequence. Massive stars can produce up to Nokia phones, but that's the final stage that stars can produce in their normal lifespan. All smartphones are produced in supernova. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.246.149|172.69.246.149]] 05:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I thought they were produced in a Movistar. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.163.167|172.70.163.167]] 09:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: The iPhone 13 mini is not listed because it's a rare isotope that only forms within highly compact spacetime conditions that no longer exist in our region of the universe. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 14:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I miss an explanation of the iPhone models. Are these the only ones there are? In which order were they released? (Of course, I could google iPhone, but that would defeat the purpose of this page, wouldn’t it?) It feels strange that there is an iPhone 7, but no 8 and 9, then X (assuming X means 10), 11, 12 only with the addition “pro max” and so on. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.43.67|172.70.43.67]] 06:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think there is an 8 {{unsigned ip|172.70.162.195|09:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)}}
:There are more phones theorised to exist in nature, but they're mostly only found in high-energy colliders. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.179|172.68.205.179]] 07:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
::Note that the comic shows a {{w|decay chain}} not a {{w|table of nuclides}}, i.e. it only shows iPhones which occur during the decay of an iPhone 16 pro max. I also wonder why iPhone X apparently has Z=9, but according to {{w|List of iPhone models}} apparently no iPhone 9 was ever observed. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.109.89|172.69.109.89]] 09:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:Before iPhone 11, Apple tended to bump the major number only every second year. They released the iPhones 8 and X the same year, then XS and XR the next year. So: ... 6, 6S, 7, (8 and X), (XS and XR), (11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max), ... {{unsigned ip|172.68.0.151|10:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)}}
Maybe this references how especially for iPhones, new models are constantly made and old ones traded in or discarded? As if the new phones are actually the same and current phones are just getting worse? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.167.10|162.158.167.10]] 07:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Is this like how Randall's TI-85 decayed into a TI-83? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.17.144|172.69.17.144]] 11:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
:I think that's a corollary worth noting in the description! [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

So, is there a {{w|neutronium}} analogue, in the "iPhone <no number> expert super plus pro max elite extra master genius limited edition"? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.29|172.71.178.29]] 12:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a real element that has a similar decay chain. [[User:Bigyihsuan|Bigyihsuan]] ([[User talk:Bigyihsuan|talk]]) 13:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I wonder what the actual weights are of the phones and if that does track... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.69|172.68.54.69]] 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Presumably it ends with the 7 because that's currently the earliest iPhone still receiving security updates [[Special:Contributions/172.69.114.83|172.69.114.83]] 17:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
: I think this needs to be mentioned in the official explanation, that's the only sensible explanation for why "stable" ends at 7 (assuming it is true that 7 is the last supported model for OS updates, I did not double check.{{unsigned ip|162.158.103.187|23:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)}}
::I agree that 7 being the earliest with updates, should be mentioned. (It's the first reason I thought of as well, for it being the final decay state.) [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Side note: the SIM part could also be related to the fact that, since the iPhone first came out, the standard size of SIMs has changed twice (by shrinking). In a curious twist of things, different phones have different compatibilities with each standard SIM size: some accept SIMs one size bigger if trimmed to size, some accept SIMs one size smaller if surrounded by extra material (cardboard or plastic) to bring them to size, some accept both and some accept one; I'm not sure about compatibility two sizes away. (TL;DR: the phone may be ejectng the incompatible SIM)--[[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.38|172.64.236.38]] 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

3064: Lungfish

2025-03-18T11:37:10Z

172.70.160.219: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3064
| date = March 17, 2025
| title = Lungfish
| image = lungfish_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x403px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I know having so many base pairs makes rebasing complicated, but you're in Bilateria, so shouldn't you at LEAST be better at using git head?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a COPY OF COPY OF COPY OF COPY OF LUNGFISH - more information on lungfish if necessary, less information if not. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Lungfish}} (the class ''Dipnoi'') have the largest known {{w|genome}} among the {{w|vertebrate}}s (155 billion {{w|base pair}}s), and the third-largest known genome of all species. The comic relates this to a common issue when editing documents or coding, where the author accidentally makes changes to {{w|Fork (software development)|two separately created versions of documents}}, when they meant to only edit one, which can result in changes to both (or all) resulting documents functionally essential parts of the completed project, or at least present as development artefacts in the 'final' product. This may happen if documents are sent for review (or updating) to different editors, or at different times, and the changes from the earlier one(s) aren't properly integrated with the later one(s). The comic posits that Lungfish has a habit of doing this with its own genome, making both genes essential and increasing the amount of base pairs.

When Cueball confronts Lungfish about this bad habit of mismanaging files, Lungfish dismisses him by saying he'll just "buy more storage". This is likely alluding to when people are faced with an increasing number of files on their storage media, they just buy more storage, either by adding another media drive or paying additional monthly fees for online storage (ex: [https://www.apple.com/ca/icloud/ iCloud] or [https://one.google.com/about/plans Google Drive]). Because of the relatively low cost of storage, this often seems like any easy 'solution', but doesn't actually address the problems of information fragmentation and management. As well as being an issue in their own right, a failure to deal with these can lead to a repeating pattern that ratchets up storage cost over time. If part of the process is to buy 'fresh' storage space, perhaps to ''attempt'' to rationalise the new and historic files from where they were previously, an even worse legacy of 'temporary' copies (or near-copies) of old files may end up littering [[1360: Old Files|various layers of storage]], in ways that may later confuse matters further.

For anyone curious about the science, it's important to note that [https://www.science.org/content/article/odd-fish-has-30-times-much-dna-humans-new-record-animals this is absolutely not why lungfish have a large genome]; while some organisms do contain many copies of genes as a diversification strategy, this mostly occurs only in some plants and single-celled eukaryotes. Lungfish have roughly the same number of genes as a human (and likely slightly fewer), and the large size of the lungfish genome is likely due to poor transposon control causing their chromosomes to fill up with junk.

The names of the "files" reference several things about computer files:
* Older versions of Windows, when copy-and-pasting a file within the same folder, would automatically append "Copy of" to the start of the filename, resulting in a file named "Copy of ''x''". (This was previously referenced in the title text of [[1459: Documents]].) If ''that'' file was then copied, it would be likewise appended, thus producing "Copy of Copy of ''x''". (Newer versions of Windows instead add "- Copy" to the end of the filename, which produces the same effect but keeps things in roughly the same order when sorted by name.) Google Docs automatically adds "Copy of ''x''" to documents when copied.
* Numbered labels in brackets can be produced by a couple different actions:
** If multiple files are highlighted and a Rename action is performed, all of the files will be given the same name with a number label, starting with the one clicked on for the Rename action and then proceeding from the top of the list down as originally sorted. For example, if three files named "Alpha", "Beta", and "Gamma" are highlighted, and the user right-clicks on "Gamma" and renames it to "Alphabet", then "Gamma" will be renamed to "Alphabet (1)", followed by "Alphabet (2)" [formerly Alpha] and "Alphabet (3)" [formerly Beta].
** If a copied file is pasted multiple times in the same folder, it will also receive number labels in the same format. This includes copies that are also appended as such in the above points, so a newly-pasted file might end up with a "Copy of" tag AND a "(2)" tag.
** If a file is downloaded from webmail and a file with same name already exists in the download folder, browsers append a number such as "(1)".
* Some users will keep older drafts of a file in case of a need to revert back to an older version; this can be done with a number label (i.e. "v1", "v2", etc.) or a proper word (i.e. "draft", "edited", etc.) at the user's discretion. This can be useful if it's discovered an edit breaks something important, or in the event that a mistaken save action loses data, but it can also lead to file hoarding. It is also far from foolproof, especially if words are used rather than numbers as a "(Newest)"-named file can't itself know when it is superseded (perhaps by a "(Final)" file) and even a "(Final)" one cannot be sure that the project hasn't been revisited (perhaps with an update to "(Newest)"; such a manual method of attempting to keep sequential versions in line can easily be open to misuse and ambiguity of status. Especially when any changes apparently have not been so obviously major to the person(s) involved that the "version number" has been updated - or else ''both'' were (separate!) refinements of some "v2" revision(s), or earlier, without regard/awareness of the other update.

In short, the file names "Copy of Copy of Gene v3 (Newest) (2)" and "Copy of Copy of Gene v3 (Final) (2)" suggest a very poorly-organized method of version tracking - and a tendency to copy-paste unnecessarily - on the part of the lungfish, which certainly explains why it keeps editing multiple documents instead of a single one.

The title text further compares the biology of lungfish to managing versions of files in a popular version control system called {{w|Git}}, which includes a facility called [https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/git-head/ "head"] that assists in keeping track of the latest available version of a particular project resource, across all updating and forking. Rebasing, in Git, is the act of moving changes from one file branch to another, which Cueball says is complicated due to the large number of 'base pairs' - a pun since base pairs are elements of chromosomes. {{w|Bilateria}} is a clade of animals characterized by embryonic bilateral symmetry, giving their bodies distinguishable "head" and "tail" ends. Since this applies to lungfish, Cueball says, in another pun, that the lungfish should at least know how to use the "head" branch with Git.

==Transcript==
:[A lungfish is sticking its head out of the water close to a wooden dock. It is looking up at Cueball, standing on the dock looking down, and they are talking.]
:Lungfish: It turns out I've been editing both '''''Copy of Copy of Gene v3 (Newest) (2)''''' and '''''Copy of Copy of Gene v3 (Final) (2)''''' so now I can't delete either one.
:Cueball: You have '''''got''''' to stop doing this.
:Lungfish: It's fine, I'll just buy more storage.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Why lungfish have such enormous genomes

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Version Control]]

3064: Lungfish

2025-03-18T11:35:00Z

172.70.160.219: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 3064
| date = March 17, 2025
| title = Lungfish
| image = lungfish_2x.png
| imagesize = 317x403px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = I know having so many base pairs makes rebasing complicated, but you're in Bilateria, so shouldn't you at LEAST be better at using git head?
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a COPY OF COPY OF COPY OF COPY OF LUNGFISH - more information on lungfish if necessary, less information if not. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

{{w|Lungfish}} (the class ''Dipnoi'') have the largest known {{w|genome}} among the {{w|vertebrate}}s (155 billion {{w|base pair}}s), and the third-largest known genome of all species. The comic relates this to a common issue when editing documents or coding, where the author accidentally makes changes to {{w|Fork (software development)|two separately created versions of documents}}, when they meant to only edit one, which can result in changes to both (or all) resulting documents functionally essential parts of the completed project, or at least present as development artefacts in the 'final' product. This may happen if documents are sent for review (or updating) to different editors, or at different times, and the changes from the earlier one(s) aren't properly integrated with the later one(s). The comic posits that Lungfish has a habit of doing this with its own genome, making both genes essential and increasing the amount of base pairs.

When Cueball confronts Lungfish about this bad habit of mismanaging files, Lungfish dismisses him by saying he'll just "buy more storage". This is likely alluding to when people are faced with an increasing number of files on their storage media, they just buy more storage, either by adding another media drive or paying additional monthly fees for online storage (ex: [https://www.apple.com/ca/icloud/ iCloud] or [https://one.google.com/about/plans Google Drive]). Because of the relatively low cost of storage, this often seems like any easy 'solution', but doesn't actually address the problems of information fragmentation and management. As well as being an issue in their own right, a failure to deal with these can lead to a repeating pattern that ratchets up storage cost over time. If part of the process is to buy 'fresh' storage space, perhaps to ''attempt'' to rationalise the new and historic files from where they were previously, an even worse legacy of 'temporary' copies (or near-copies) of old files may end up littering [[1360: Old Files|various layers of storage]], in ways that may later confuse mattes further.

For anyone curious about the science, it's important to note that [https://www.science.org/content/article/odd-fish-has-30-times-much-dna-humans-new-record-animals this is absolutely not why lungfish have a large genome]; while some organisms do contain many copies of genes as a diversification strategy, this mostly occurs only in some plants and single-celled eukaryotes. Lungfish have roughly the same number of genes as a human (and likely slightly fewer), and the large size of the lungfish genome is likely due to poor transposon control causing their chromosomes to fill up with junk.

The names of the "files" reference several things about computer files:
* Older versions of Windows, when copy-and-pasting a file within the same folder, would automatically append "Copy of" to the start of the filename, resulting in a file named "Copy of ''x''". (This was previously referenced in the title text of [[1459: Documents]].) If ''that'' file was then copied, it would be likewise appended, thus producing "Copy of Copy of ''x''". (Newer versions of Windows instead add "- Copy" to the end of the filename, which produces the same effect but keeps things in roughly the same order when sorted by name.) Google Docs automatically adds "Copy of ''x''" to documents when copied.
* Numbered labels in brackets can be produced by a couple different actions:
** If multiple files are highlighted and a Rename action is performed, all of the files will be given the same name with a number label, starting with the one clicked on for the Rename action and then proceeding from the top of the list down as originally sorted. For example, if three files named "Alpha", "Beta", and "Gamma" are highlighted, and the user right-clicks on "Gamma" and renames it to "Alphabet", then "Gamma" will be renamed to "Alphabet (1)", followed by "Alphabet (2)" [formerly Alpha] and "Alphabet (3)" [formerly Beta].
** If a copied file is pasted multiple times in the same folder, it will also receive number labels in the same format. This includes copies that are also appended as such in the above points, so a newly-pasted file might end up with a "Copy of" tag AND a "(2)" tag.
** If a file is downloaded from webmail and a file with same name already exists in the download folder, browsers append a number such as "(1)".
* Some users will keep older drafts of a file in case of a need to revert back to an older version; this can be done with a number label (i.e. "v1", "v2", etc.) or a proper word (i.e. "draft", "edited", etc.) at the user's discretion. This can be useful if it's discovered an edit breaks something important, or in the event that a mistaken save action loses data, but it can also lead to file hoarding. It is also far from foolproof, especially if words are used rather than numbers as a "(Newest)"-named file can't itself know when it is superseded (perhaps by a "(Final)" file) and even a "(Final)" one cannot be sure that the project hasn't been revisited (perhaps with an update to "(Newest)"; such a manual method of attempting to keep sequential versions in line can easily be open to misuse and ambiguity of status. Especially when any changes apparently have not been so obviously major to the person(s) involved that the "version number" has been updated - or else ''both'' were (separate!) refinements of some "v2" revision(s), or earlier, without regard/awareness of the other update.

In short, the file names "Copy of Copy of Gene v3 (Newest) (2)" and "Copy of Copy of Gene v3 (Final) (2)" suggest a very poorly-organized method of version tracking - and a tendency to copy-paste unnecessarily - on the part of the lungfish, which certainly explains why it keeps editing multiple documents instead of a single one.

The title text further compares the biology of lungfish to managing versions of files in a popular version control system called {{w|Git}}, which includes a facility called [https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/git-head/ "head"] that assists in keeping track of the latest available version of a particular project resource, across all updating and forking. Rebasing, in Git, is the act of moving changes from one file branch to another, which Cueball says is complicated due to the large number of 'base pairs' - a pun since base pairs are elements of chromosomes. {{w|Bilateria}} is a clade of animals characterized by embryonic bilateral symmetry, giving their bodies distinguishable "head" and "tail" ends. Since this applies to lungfish, Cueball says, in another pun, that the lungfish should at least know how to use the "head" branch with Git.

==Transcript==
:[A lungfish is sticking its head out of the water close to a wooden dock. It is looking up at Cueball, standing on the dock looking down, and they are talking.]
:Lungfish: It turns out I've been editing both '''''Copy of Copy of Gene v3 (Newest) (2)''''' and '''''Copy of Copy of Gene v3 (Final) (2)''''' so now I can't delete either one.
:Cueball: You have '''''got''''' to stop doing this.
:Lungfish: It's fine, I'll just buy more storage.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Why lungfish have such enormous genomes

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Programming]]
[[Category:Version Control]]

Talk:3063: Planet Definitions

2025-03-18T09:51:07Z

172.70.160.219:

The one currently posted has Pluto highlighted in the second box and not highlighted in the first box. Too hard to tell if it's trolling or a genuine mistake. :-D

:Apparently a mistake since it's fixed now. [[User:HughNo|HughNo]] ([[User talk:HughNo|talk]]) 19:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And the first one also has a moon hilighted instead I think?? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.5|162.158.126.5]] 15:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Was about to write the same. The coloring in the first two lines arund Pluto seem wrong (or mistankingly switched). --[[Special:Contributions/172.71.222.246|172.71.222.246]] 16:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This, this is the hill I will die on. I was radicalised by this paper: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.15285 Moons Are Planets: "Scientific Usefulness Versus Cultural Teleology in the Taxonomy of Planetary Science"]
In short; planets are what planetary scientists study. Round things with the *good stuff*: atmospheres, oceans, volcanoes (of lava or water ice) (see diagram page 53).
Pluto, Titan, Ceres, Io and Europa are all in the sweet spot where you're not so small you're just a lump of rocks who happen to be stuck together into a lump, and not so large you're just a mostly undifferentiated mass of fusing hydrogen/helium plasma.
And it's consistent with our pre-20th Century understanding of what a planet is, whereas the IAU definition is trying to preserve 19th Century astrology. An amazing read and a strong recommend for anyone who cares about this subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.138|172.69.79.138]] 16:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Ooh, thank you! That was fascinating and I'm head-canonizing that definition now. –[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 23:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Does this sort of count as pi-related for pi day? [[User:TomtheBuilder|TomtheBuilder]] ([[User talk:TomtheBuilder|talk]]) 17:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:he doesn't do themed comics anymore 😔 [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:: Sure he does. [[2962]] and [[2969]] weren't too long ago. Seems like it, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.222|172.71.182.222]] 03:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't understand either the "he doesn't do themes" bit, or the full nature of the reply, frankly. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.122|172.68.205.122]] 22:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I was somewhat disappointed to get to the end of the table without seeing either an astrology or Sailor Moon joke. -- [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 18:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible that Uranus is marked under "Empiricist" because of the "Randall has seen Uranus" joke? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.178|172.70.42.178]] 18:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The "{{w|Classical planet|Classical Planets}}" should be 7, including the Sun and the Moon.
:The average distance of the orbit of the Moon around the Earth must be slightly farther away than the orbit of the Sun around the Earth, since the Moon lags behind the Sun a little more each day, but the orbits must cross or we would never have a solar eclipse :P [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Regolithic one depend on the exact definitions of "dirt", "ice", and "covered"? It seems that an argument could be made that the giant planets also count there but have a much thicker atmosphere on the outside, and disqualifying because of the atmosphere could exclude others like Earth depending on the exact threshold used. [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Has Randall not seen the sun before?
:I'm impressed that he has seen Uranus (unless that actually is a joke), especially if he saw it unaided (apparently it actually can be barely seen with the naked eye if the conditions are incredibly good). [[User:SammyChips|SammyChips]] ([[User talk:SammyChips|talk]]) 19:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Could the sun be classified as a "world"? --[[User:MothWaves|MothWaves]] ([[User talk:MothWaves|talk]]) 19:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I assumed he meant "seen directly with my eyes", so that a photograph would not count, but looking through a telescope during an astronomy night at the local University would count. And he hasn't looked *closely* at the Sun, because of the need for eye protection. [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically, spacecraft have landed on Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn. Just not in a survivable manner. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 19:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Have we really not sent anything directly into the Sun yet? [[User:JimJJewett|JimJJewett]] ([[User talk:JimJJewett|talk]]) 23:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
::The most "into the Sun" we've done is [https://science.nasa.gov/mission/parker-solar-probe/ the Parker Solar Probe], and it hasn't attempted to 'land' there (apart from that being effectively impossible, even beyond the likes of Cassini's final fall "onto" Saturn). It's also ''very hard'' to even send things into the Sun, because the direct method would need you to send a craft from Earth backwards at the same speed as the Earth orbits forwards (or very close to that), otherwise all you can do is fall ''past'' it and loop back up again. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.94|162.158.74.94]] 01:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:No one even knows if Jupiter and Saturn have a *land* to land on. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 14:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::Sstill subject to further study, but the crushed and burnt (and probably unrecognisable) remains of the probes will be 'landed' (or floating on top of any layer that they're ultimately more buoyant than) down there, somewhere (unless they're totally ablated away, but there'll probably be ''some'' fragments of hi-tech metal frame, even if no circuit boards or metal foils survive) Should there be a form of life in existence down in the depths of the gas-giant's mass, with any curiosity to them, I imagine they'll be wondering what this new variety of 'space rain' is, that's totally unlike the usual ex-asteroidal/cometish stuff that they must occasionally get punching down through from the inaccessible upper reaches above their native environment. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.68|162.158.74.68]] 19:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the Pluto error in Traditionalist and Modernist images were fixed. I now see Pluto highlighted in traditionalist and Pluto unhighlighted in Modern. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.7.91|172.68.7.91]] 19:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

indeed, it seems fine now, i removed my earlier comment--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.233.116|162.158.233.116]] 23:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

//Jean-Luc Margot wrote a serious planet definition proposal// in 2024 as a starting point for community conversations and welcomes feedback. In 2019 I wrote a small article myself on planet and moon classes simply by size. //Mondklassen "wwwahnsinn"// (in German).
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.108|162.158.159.108]] 19:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm disputing that there has never been a formal definition of "planet" prior to 2006 - the ancient Greek definition of "wandering [relative to seemingly-fixed stars] points of light in the night sky" seems formal enough to me. I marked it {{tl|actual citation needed}}. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 19:52, 14 March 2025‎
: I've reworded the sentence to say "in modern times" so we aren't making unfounded and likely-incorrect claims about antiquity. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.73|198.41.227.73]] 21:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone else strongly dislike the term '''natural satellite''' replacing ''moon''? Under the new nomenclature, only Earth's moon is 'the Moon'. All other moons are now merely natural satellites. Phobos, Deimos, Ganymede, are no longer considered moons. My biggest problem with the new definition is that planets themselves are natural satellites of stars. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.225|172.71.182.225]] 20:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems likely that the Saturnian moon highlighted in the Maritime definition is Titan, since it has liquid seas and lakes on its surface. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.6.5|172.69.6.5]] 21:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:I've noted in the Transcript that (despite apparently being ''identical'' pre-highlight drawings in all other ways, or at least very consistently reproduced), Saturn is given one moon ''most'' of the time, but two moons on occasion. Similarly, Uranus's moons (spread from upper-right to lower-left) do-or-do-not include the dot (in one case suffering a highlighting) moving across the face of the planet. From an analytical perspective, I'm wondering if Randall did indeed copypaste the 'normal' iillustration, but then have to manually add in "whoops, I forgot I need to highlight a further item thaat I haven't already drawn" into some of the established copies, touching up where necessary (and maybe where still not necessary too). ...But I'm not sure it matters what he did or did not do. It's just an observation about the result. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.190|172.69.79.190]] 23:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, Titan's present in all the diagrams, and a second moon of Saturn shows up when highlighting is necessary. The bonus "Marine Biologist" planet is clearly Enceladus, but the bonus "Judgemental" planet doesn't line up with it: presumably it's one of Saturn's other moons. Which one? My wild guess is Iapetus. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.150.27|172.68.150.27]] 01:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Great explanation, thank you, but was it really necessary to include a snide dig at Baby Boomers? Not a BB myself - I'm gen X, if we're using those facile labels - but surely we don't need to encourage intergenerational resentment and conflict. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.116|172.68.174.116]] 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC) 
As a historian, I strongly disagree with the snide definition of tradition. (No, not a BB.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.212.132|162.158.212.132]] 07:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:That's a direct quote from a prior comic, that whoever wrote it in the first placce ysed, so I've rewritten it to perhaps ''not'' look quite so much like some editor's own grudge/snidiness (which it may or may not be, but not without Randall giving justifiable precedent to say it). Maybe can be tweaked further, but it might be a shame to lose the inter-comic referential humour that (regardless of tone) is staple for this site. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.109|162.158.74.109]] 12:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::I wrote it. No snideness intended. I thought the connection was topical. Unfortunately, thanks to the "Okay boomer" phenomenon, any reference to the generation comes across as condescending. The "Tradition" strip was published in 2011, and the phrase rose to popularity in 2019. It, like [[36]], is just one of those things that is not standing the test of time. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.47.89|172.70.47.89]] 20:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe we're currently missing part of the joke in the mouseover text. Not only is Earth now a star because of human fusion, it's also no longer a planet, because, due to human satellites and spacecraft, it no longer clears its orbit.
[[Special:Contributions/198.41.227.42|198.41.227.42]] 06:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the usual singular of criteria criterion? According to my dictionary, a criterium is a type of cycling race.--[[Special:Contributions/172.71.26.100|172.71.26.100]] 09:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:Indeed. Maybe a thinko, though, rather. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.139|172.69.79.139]] 11:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I am curious why only one of the Galilean moons counts as pretty, and I wonder which one (either Ganymede or Callisto, given where its drawn). They are all pretty to me, I like how surprisingly distinct they look from one another.
[[User:Terdragontra|Terdragontra]] ([[User talk:Terdragontra|talk]]) 13:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Re title text: With the launch of the JWST, Earth has no longer cleared its orbital neighborhood, right? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.176.57|172.70.176.57]] 14:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I tend to go by an expansive definition myself, considering all dwarf planets "planets" in my eyes. But I'm not like, arguing with the IAU's definition, this is just how I prefer to think of them, because dwarf planets are really cool. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.140|172.70.126.140]] 19:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

In the title text explanation, there's no mention of the inclusion of the phrase about Earth clearing its orbital neighborhood. I think this has something to do with all of our man-made satellites that have not been cleared from Earth's orbital neighborhood. Does anyone else think that's an important part of the title text and needs to be explained? [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I think I like the "Recognizable" criteria. Something is a planet if it orbits the Sun and there exists at least one photograph of the object that a reasonably knowledgeable layperson can correctly identify. That would mean that all of the IAU defined planets are planets (except maybe Mercury), and that Pluto became a planet in 2015. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.141|172.68.245.141]] 14:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
:...there's a risk that Uranus and/or Neptune ("or both... hang on... which one's supposed to be bluer..? and is this one of those miscalibrated images or not..?") might drop out of the Recognisable grouping. And the Moon would be added, unless you arbitrarily banned near-side images, in which case it'd be demoted to "dunno" except by particularly adept selenophiles who probably even know the far-side, and limbs, like the back of their own hands. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.94|162.158.74.94]] 16:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

A definition I thought up a while ago that I'm pretty proud of is that a planet is an object that is not a star or moon, has a stable orbit around a star, and that has a larger mass than the largest moon in its solar system. (a moon is defined as having a barycenter inside an object that directly orbits the Sun). That way, there is a clear, natural, distinction of larger bodies and smaller ones that conforms to the public thinking of a planet as large and not a moon. By my definition, the planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. (Though Mercury is famously smaller in radius than the moons Ganymede and Titan, it has more mass -- and given that mass grants greater gravity, I consider mass to be more important). My wider category of a world is for all star-orbiters that have differentiated layers, so the worlds in the Solar System would be (I think) Mercury, Venus, Earth, the Moon, Ceres, Vesta, Jupiter, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, Io, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Charon, Quaoar, Haumea, Makemake, Gonggong, Eris, and Sedna. This would be a harder category to assign than planet and a bit more fuzzy -- which plays in to the fuzzy use of world already existing -- but is still more clear cut than "gravitationally rounded" as no object is a perfect sphere and the strict definition of hydrostatic equilibrium means Mercury is not a planet. Of course, since no exomoons have been discovered as they are very hard to find, all exoplanets discovered would be planets -- which is nice and uncomplicated and natural for the human to assume that the bodies are planets. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.145|108.162.245.145]] 18:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
: Having the status of bodies be contingent on what is going on elsewhere seems even more problematic than current arguments over where artificial lines between categories should be drawn. In theory, Jupiter could capture a passing wandering planet and, under your system, instantly demote a bunch of the current planets to non-planets, even though nothing about them has actually changed.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.219|172.70.160.219]] 09:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

'''"Modern" vs "Current"'''. Does anyone feel frustrated when people confuse "modern", "contemporary", and "current"? "Modern" is post-1500, "contemporary" is the age someone lives in, and "current" is 'today'. Throughout 75 years of the modern era, Pluto 'was' considered a planet. Is anyone willing to shift non-canonical usage of "modern" to "current" in the article? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.95.28|172.71.95.28]] 15:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
: "''Modern" is post-1500''" -- '''Museum of '''Modern''' Art''', 1929/1930 until today (essentially Pluto's reign); works to 1885 --[[User:PRR|PRR]] ([[User talk:PRR|talk]]) 00:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I added a bunch of Wikipedia citations. I went by the WP rule (citation needed) of linking the first non-parenthesized instance of a word/phrase. That does make for some awkward things, like lists with only some of the items linked, and the {{w|natural satellite|moon}} link in a mention under '''Simplistic''' rather than on the more relevant '''Lunar'''.
–[[User:P1h3r1e3d13|P1h3r1e3d13]] ([[User talk:P1h3r1e3d13|talk]]) 22:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

According to the "simplistic" definition, the rings themselves (also round) are separate planets. If the simplistic definition had merely been "spheroidal" rather than "round", they would not be. I'd love to see a version of the chart where Saturn is green, but the rings are white. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.99.166|172.71.99.166]] 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Utratraditionalist version of the solar system have 7 planets (including the Sun and the Moon)? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.245.136|172.68.245.136]] 15:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

3057: Excusing Yourself

2025-03-03T20:28:04Z

172.70.160.219: /* Explanation */ One or two necessary corrections, several useful minor adjustments.

{{comic
| number = 3057
| date = February 28, 2025
| title = Excusing Yourself
| image = excusing_yourself_2x.png
| imagesize = 740x334px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = The most awkward part is when you have to pause to put on your shoes before you continue rolling out the door.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by AN EXTREMELY POLITE BOT - Please continue to tidy up the explanation. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

This comic revolves around different degrees of 'politeness' in ways to leave a gathering, showing various scenes replicating the end of a social event — possibly a dinner party — but with different outcomes.

The first panel shows [[Megan]] sitting at a table with [[White Hat]] and [[Ponytail]]. Ponytail expresses surprise at how late she's 'kept them up', and mentions that she needs to go somewhere early in the morning. Despite this and the fact that sleep is essential,{{Citation needed}} she offers to help tidy up the house before she leaves. This is considered the most polite way to leave, as it suggests that they're leaving, not because they don't enjoy the company, but out of necessity. It expresses concern for the well-being of the host (saying that she's kept them up), and even implies that she'd lost track of time because she'd been having such a good time. Offering to help tidy up, despite being tired, is additionally courteous.

The second panel shows [[Cueball]] at the same gathering, saying that he must leave due to the fact that he is tired and must sleep. This expresses the same sentiments as Ponytail, but in a much more blunt and terse way, and without offering to help clean up. Such an exit is acceptable to most people, but not excessively polite.

Even less polite is the trickster and classhole [[Black Hat]], in the third panel, who excuses himself in typical Black Hat fashion. Instead of him saying that he alone is tired, he says that EVERYONE looks tired ''and'' bored. This is very impolite, especially in a social setting. Saying that people "look tired" can be taken as an insult, and claiming that "everyone looks bored" simultaneously suggests that the gathering is boring ''and'' that everyone present is either too impolite to hide their boredom, or simply unable to. Claiming to speak for everyone in expressing boredom is arrogant and insulting to both his fellow guests and the hosts.

The final panel shows three points in time, depicting an unfolding action. [[Megan]] (again) kicks the table, sending the chair tipping backwards and dumping her onto the floor. She then proceeds to roll away from the table, and presumably outside the house. This is the kind of maneuver one might see in an action movie, as someone tries to escape danger (or capture). In addition to being abrupt, disruptive and potentially damaging (since it clearly knocks over things on the table), this exit sends the message that she's desperate to escape as quickly as possible. It is also a health risk as she may sustain a concussion from such a fall pictured in the comic where the head directly impacts the floor, unless she has {{w|Uke (martial arts)#Ukemi|specifically practiced}} {{w|Stunt#Practical effects|such maneuvers}}.

The title text adds to the general awkwardness of having to excuse yourself, when Megan has to stop rolling to put her shoes on before continuing. This would not be universal, since it is not the general practice in the United States for guests to remove their shoes in someone's home. But if such were the case, then pausing in the middle of such a dramatic escape would really water down the impact, forcing her to remain in the company of people she'd just dramatically tried to get away from.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Caption above the panel:]
:Ways to leave a social interaction:
:[An arrow pointing towards the right is shown below the caption. Caption above arrow:]
:Less polite

:[First Panel: From left to right, Ponytail, White Hat, and Megan are sitting at a table with half-full glasses on it. Megan is looking down at her phone.]
:Megan: Oh, gosh, I can't believe how late I've kept you up! I have to wake up early, so I should really go soon.
:Megan: Can I help tidy up?

:[Second Panel: White Hat and Cueball are sitting at a table (only the right half is shown, so Ponytail may be presumed to be in the left chair as in the first panel), on which there are half-full glasses and a plate.]
:Cueball: It's been great, but I'm tired and need to sleep.

:[Third Panel: White Hat and Black Hat are sitting at a table (again, Ponytail may be in the left chair), with two plates and a half-full wine glass at White Hat's spot. Black Hat's arm is resting on the back of his chair.]
:Black Hat: We're about done having fun, right?
:Black Hat: Everyone looks bored.
:Black Hat: And tired.

:[Fourth Panel: Ponytail, White Hat are sitting at the table. Megan is shown in a sequence of actions within the same frame.]
:[Action 1: Megan kicks the table at which she was sat, spilling the drinks on it, while simultaneously pushing her chair backwards, to topple it:]
:''Kick''
:Megan: Bye.
:[Action 2: Megan and her chair crash to the floor, with arm flung back.]
:''Crash''
:[Action 3: Megan tumbles away from the position she fell in, either in a backwards or sideways roll.]

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Social interactions]]

User talk:FaviFake

2025-01-28T14:50:55Z

172.70.160.219: /* YouTube template */ I seemed to skip why this is different (also, using N for Book N then Page N is potentially confusing, so now it's P).

{{TOC}}

<big><big><big><big>Hey there, feel free to '''[https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:FaviFake&action=edit&section=new send me a message]''' :)</big></big></big></big>

== Objects table ==
Thanks for replying. The current table in the main text looks good, but still it is a ''description'' or just ''enumeration'' of game objects, not an ''explanation'' (or in some cases: partly an explanation). Supposing we keep the current structure, it is possible to add explanations for the planet names in the '''Explanation''' column. For example, first sentence of the second paragraph is a good ''explanation'' for the Uzumaki planet's name. On the other hand, Andal has only a ''description'' (what it looks like and what features are present on the surface) and no ''explanation'' (that it refers to Animorphs series of books). There's also a question where one should put explanations of items and messages. Some do not need an explanation ('You found a stick'), but most do: what they mean and what they refer to, both in xkcd context (such as when there's a comic about the thing) and in general context. I hope you understand the difference between ''description'' and ''explanation''. Maybe there's also some misunderstanding resulting from a language barrier; English is not my native language.

What is also missing in the table are many structures or objects found on the planets and, most importantly, dialogues or monologous of the characters, which contain many puns and references, and also hints for the player. There's simply no place for them in the current structure. Making more columns may be messsy. That's why I proposed making several tables covering different aspects.

Please take my remarks as proposals to improve the structure and not as a criticism or request for you to make everything right and fill every cell of the table. I think we need to create a clear structure for everyone else to fill in with details; but also to provide good examples to follow.

Technical remarks:
* In my opinion, the filename column is not needed, it does not appear anywhere while playing, it's in source code only. Better remove it to have more horizontal space for the rest. The names given to the planets by the editors of the explanation page shown in the Description column are fine.
* Coordinates are also not useful for a regular player, who does not use some Javascript addition/cheats, maybe remove it as well; textual directions in '''Explanation''' column are sufficient.

-- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
:> Thanks for replying. The current table in the main text looks good, but still it is a ''description'' or just ''enumeration'' of game objects, not an ''explanation'' (or in some cases: partly an explanation). Supposing we keep the current structure, it is possible to add explanations for the planet names in the '''Explanation''' column. For example, first sentence of the second paragraph is a good ''explanation'' for the Uzumaki planet's name. On the other hand, Andal has only a ''description'' (what it looks like and what features are present on the surface) and no ''explanation'' (that it refers to Animorphs series of books).
:Hey! Yeah, that's the state of the table ''right now'', and I 100% percent agree with everything you're saying here. All planets and items that need an explanation should be explained and not just described. I mostly just copied and pasted the "planet description/explanations" from the old list to the table: creating the table was way more painful than i thought. I was actually surprized to see that nobody explained what Andal referred to, but I don't know anything about it so more knowledgeable people will have to chip in on that

:>There's also a question where one should put explanations of items and messages. Some do not need an explanation ('You found a stick'), but most do: what they mean and what they refer to, both in xkcd context (such as when there's a comic about the thing) and in general context. I hope you understand the difference between ''description'' and ''explanation''.
:I do! And I wish other people could help here. I'm not sure if you've seen it, but this is the banner i put above the table:
----
'''ALL ITEM EXPLANATIONS NEED TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE OLD PLANET LIST TO THE NEW TABLE''' 
We are currently switching from a disorganized list (below, inside the green banner) to the new organized table, but the explanations for specific items are missing from the new table. Please help by copying the item explanations from the old list and adding them to the new table ''in this format:'' 
<code>The item message &ndash; <nowiki>''Where to find it &ndash; Explanation, such as references etc''</nowiki></code> 
Example: You found a cheese platter (Your tanks recharge faster) – ''Next to the cell tower – The cheese is a reference to [https://example.com 1234: Cheese]''
----
'''OTHER ISSUES:'''
* upgrades that end in "???" need to be replaced by the exact upgrade message shown to the user.
* the "Tiles (X, Y)" column for planet coordinates is empty

:As you can see, the explanations should be put right next to the items and messages. Unfortunately no one has started to add them to the table yet

:> Maybe there's also some misunderstanding resulting from a language barrier; English is not my native language.
:Your English is excellent :)

:> dialogues or monologous of the characters, which contain many puns and references, and also hints for the player. There's simply no place for them in the current structure. Making more columns may be messsy. That's why I proposed making several tables covering different aspects.
Almost all the dialogues are on the [[2765: Escape Speed/Transcript]] page, so I guess they should be added there. I don't know if they're already here, I haven't looked at it enough
:: The transcript is not the place for explanations. Puns and references shall be explained elsewhere. I continue working on the transcript but there's still quite a way to go. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 5 May 2023

:> Please take my remarks as proposals to improve the structure and not as a criticism or request for you to make everything right and fill every cell of the table. I think we need to create a clear structure for everyone else to fill in with details; but also to provide good examples to follow.
:Yeah; i totally get everything you said. In my last reply I think I was a bit too rude for some reason, maybe it's because I just finished the table and was tired.

:>* In my opinion, the filename column is not needed, it does not appear anywhere while playing, it's in source code only. Better remove it to have more horizontal space for the rest. The names given to the planets by the editors of the explanation page shown in the Description column are fine.
:* Coordinates are also not useful for a regular player, who does not use some Javascript addition/cheats, maybe remove it as well; textual directions in '''Explanation''' column are sufficient.
I was heavily inspired by the table in the [[2712: Gravity]] explanation, which included these. I kind of agree that the filename could be removed, and the filenames could be added to the planet name or explanation, i didn't think about that. About the tiles, someone might use them someday, but if the column keeps remaining empty, i don't mind seeing it disappear

:I really liked your ideas, if you don't mind I'll copy and paste this discussion in the actual comic discussion page and see what others think --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

::Update: I found a way and added all the coordinates, and moved the planet filenames to the Planet Name column to make more space for the other columns :)

::: Hi, what about dividing planets and objects like in [[User:Malgond/Drafts/Escape_Speed|my experiment]]? There's plenty of horizontal space for explanations and the entries are quite compact vertically. I also think about color-coding the different Types of game objects. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 5 May 2023

::::Hmm, I think it looks a little messy and maybe too complicated. Do any other comics have two different tables? Also, I'm personally not a fan of mixing items, landscapes, and people. I think most people reading the table are there to get an overview of the planets and what they contain. Do we really have to explain everything in such detail? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 14:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::We do not have to follow other explanations too closely, we could use a new form if it seems clearer and better. The current form has no place neither for explaining items nor for dialogues/monologues. More columns could be problematic (specifically in today's world of high and narrow screens of smartphones). Should we explain everything? Well, it us up to collective "us". Personally, I would like someone explain a few puns/dialogues I do not understand.
:::::For now, there's only a handful of people still interested in somehow finishing the explanation for this huge comic. Maybe if we two can agree on some format we could put it in discussion page and ask for votes. (Discussion needs a cleanup, BTW). -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 22:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Hey, I'm back. I see you're enhancing your example table, and iI was wondering, do you plan to move your edits to the actual article after you're done and use the test to see how the formatting looks? Isn't it easier to just add them to the main page directly? Just wondering. If you want I can help you port them over :)
:::::Keeping the contents of the table on your talk page and then porting them over afterwards could lead to a loss of information added after you started editing your user page [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 13:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::I'm back too. Yes, I intend to put it in the main article, but I am a bit shy to replace a lot of your work; I've asked for opinions in the talk page. Let's see how it sorts out. Maybe someone has a still better idea. -- [[User:Malgond|Malgond]] ([[User talk:Malgond|talk]]) 21:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::Oh. I think the structure of the current table in the article is better than the one you've been working on: for example, it's easier to sort for items, is more compact, and is just one. Why don't you just add a "transcript" column like the table on [[2712: Gravity]] to put what things and people say, and add the rest of the information on the respective columns? Personally, I think you're making it a little bit too complicated. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 15:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

== Haltones ==

"They're not **predominantly** gray, the two main colors are just white and black. Sometimes he uses the gray color just like when he uses any other color" ... It didn't say that they were predominantly grey(/'gray'), any more than it said that they'd be predominently black (as [[:Category:Comics with inverted brightness]], often, in preference to white). The point being that even the most "black and white" images aren't monochrome, but have degrees of grey at the boundaries, with smoothly antialiased boundaries between the full black of the line (or filled area) and the full white of the background (or inverted detail). You'll see this if you zoom in, with your favourite image editor. And very often in images with a default RGB colourspace, even if the effective pallette employed covers just greyscale values. But greys actually do feature a lot, too (often the first choice of non-black-and-white, for slight lessening of prominence, as opposed to 'red pen' ''increased'' visibility). So it's technically inaccurate to describe them as pretty much monochrome. But how to convey this in <...counts...> less than 157ish words? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.173|172.71.242.173]] 16:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:The wiki page says
::::"xkcd comics are usually plain, predominantly black-and-white line drawings, but sometimes they make use of hues beyond the usual monochrome colors, even if it is just red-penned annotations.
:I think it's enough, since, even if grey is more used than other non-monochrome colors, I don't believe it's so important that it needs to be included as a "third" main color. If Randall uses many bright colors, that he will obviously also use simpler hues of grey when needed. What do you think? [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 16:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
:Aside from the antialising edging gradient, I just used the Random Page link and landed on [[1301: File Extensions|something with functional greys]], [[734: Outbreak|an unusual use of 'Post-It' yellow]], an unremarkably "just black pen" comic and then [[1788: Barge|more functional grey]]. I'd argue against "monochrome" as a description, as clearly there is more than just #000000 and #FFFFFF, often enough, in an actual fill-colour/broad-brush context. Even if that's #808080 or another no-hue shade. (I was expecting to land on a "grey pen" comic to assess, after enough clicks but, having seen what I got in the random first handful, I saw no need to go on.)
:And "monochrome" can be/often is coloured. Sepia photographs or "night vision" green displays are perfect examples of monochrome (with or without halftones/dithering/whatever). As is [[267: Choices: Part 4]] (other Choices comics may be considered "duotone", in different ways).
:Maybe "...are often drawn as black shapes on white, or occasionally white shapes on a dark background, but may feature at least one additional highlighting shade or an even fuller colour pallette." Does that sufficiently cover that whole breadth of use? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.154|172.70.86.154]] 19:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

== Childish slang. ==

Agree with you on the recent change that you (generic 'you', not ''you'' 'you'!) sound infantile, any which way, upon use of the words mentioned. Which is how it was still said before the revert in that version of edit. But with <code>"pretty gay" and "retarded" are infantile and offensive slang for "foolish" or "contemptible"</code>, you miss the point. Foolishness is just one distant contender for what "pretty gay" is often intended to mean (even if not actually being used for someone/something 'effeminate'). And "retarded" is more in the whole "thick, stupid, dumb" line of insult than "contemptible" (which is more "horrible, dislikable, repulsive"..?).
 Personally, I also thought it better with not actually defining insults (correctly or otherwise), as it adds power to them. I can call someone a "numpty" in jest, for example, and colloquially that might be understood as the low-level insult (if that) which it is intended to be. But if I start to bandy around its {{wiktionary|numpty#Scots|dictionary definition}} then it becomes more of a seriously accusatory description.
 Just my opinion. Not really understanding the latest revert when it had seemed to be improved (if anything) in the version you reverted away. Just putting it there. I know you're doing a lot of editing (good stuff!) just wondering if you considered this one carefully enough in your obvious zeal. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.182.89|172.71.182.89]] 16:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
:Addendum. Meant to say, if you decide to undo/reform your own revert (I won't do it, but on the offchance you see my point), I'd have not said "''commonly'' used". They're used in slang, but I don't think we can say how frequently they pop up. They're "used in slang" (and also not in slang, or at least not insulting slang, where "gay" has a long history of just meaning "happy", whilst "retarded" is often to do with decceleration/minimised acceleration of physical systems) but I'm not sure they're no more than minority words in the whole world of such language. They depict a subset of insult-givers (like the character in the comic, for whom it adds a certain additional characterisation) amongst all the many and varied insult-givers, and Randall surely chose such semi-bowlderised terms to not have to write any of all the far worse words he might also have done. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.31|172.71.94.31]] 16:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

== IP page to delete ==

I didn't see your thinking about why the Deletion category was not needed there. And, believe me as an IP myself, I've never known anything useful being said on an IP's User or User Talk page. With that example not breaking the pattern any. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.131|172.70.85.131]] 00:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:I just don't think there's a reason to delete it, it's useful to have a previous talk page if the IP continues to edit and people want to communicate with them [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
::"The IP" is whichever one of 'us' happens to land on that particular Cloudflare route.
::I'm not going to go back and find out which IP it represents, to check if it's in their current stock of connected gateways, but it might not be. Or it was even (depending on date) a pre-Cloudflare 'straight' access unproxied and thus no longer seen, even if the exact same editor on the exact same IP lucked on ''their'' initial gateway.
::Certainly it won't map to a meaningful 'user', chances may even be that it doesn't map to ''any'' user. IP-version User/User Talk pages are anachronisms pretty much as soon as they're created. Or before, if based upon trying to contact an author of an older edit. I was on 172.70.85.131, above, but who knows (before I submit it) what this reply's sign-off will say.
::And a one-shot editor may never ever see the results of any conversation that was tried to be started. Whereas I ''might'' see any response, anywhere, that contextually makes it plain that they're talking about an edit I once made.
::Honestly, I think it'd be worthwhile checking ''every'' IP-focussed namespace page and archiving anything truly interesting that found itself in there in some other central location then condemning them all to deletion. Maybe, if possible, prevent their creation too. But I don't have the ability to do anything (except sift through them for any of the very rare gems of quality, but I wouldn't be able to do anything about it from there on in, so...
::...not gonna do anything more about it (I can't, other than reinstate the To Be Deleted membership, whch I won't bother with), but I hope you understand my perspective on this. I've seen you become a very useful member of the community, who I generally respect for your input and tweaks to the site, and don't expect you to take instruction from li'l ol' me (not even working with an established identity). Just consider this as food for thought, and leave it at that if you wish. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.19|162.158.34.19]] 20:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

== RTL/LTR: "...but I think it refers to me" ==

Yeah, it does. The point being that we might not do anything about the smartarses who vandalise knowingly (and I don't see a problem with what you otherwise did), but when someone thinks ''they'' have unique and funny joke (along the lines of putting "Citation needed"s ''everywhere'') they might spot the comment and then realise how we've seen it all done before so refrain from the prank. I can't even recall how many times we have had to revert things, but best to put off the casual comedian, and it won't change the outcome either way for the dedicated vandal with their blood up and looking to cause trouble. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.107|141.101.98.107]] 20:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
:I guess you're right, I just thought it was very clear for everyone that rendering an entire article unreadable was an act of pure vandalism, but I guess an editor comment doesn't hurt. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

== The reason "the image size wasn't there"? ==

...because it didn't need an image-size restriction, originally? Compare the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/File:Miss_lenhart.png previous and current version sizes]. Nice to have a (''huge!'') high-res headshot, no doubt, but clearly that's why you found that it now needs artificially constraining... No actual mystery. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.63|172.70.85.63]] 17:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

:Yeah you're right, I just assumed every comic had the image size to be future-proof. The weird thing was that the "imagesize: " part was already there, but there was no value. Anyway, nothing important.

: Just out of curiosity, are you the same IP guy from [[#IP page to delete]]?--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

== I disagree with Oxford commas. ==

"For breakfast I had some bread, toast, and jam." - A legitimate(ish) case of ", and ". Or "I created the world, and saw that it was good." I otherwise prefer to suscribe to replacing all non-final conjunctions in sequence with commas but ''not'' adding one before the ultimate (remaining) conjunction. That's like having "Fish, and chips", where it isn't an actual afterthought. And best to rephrase or repunctuate (e.g. with super-listing semicolons to separate) if you have confusing comma-breakout clauses that ''so'' easily clash (or lead you down funny garden paths) with Oxford Commas. My opinion, but this is why syntax is clearer when leaving out OCs. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.93|172.70.85.93]] 13:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
:I just think it's better to use it everywhere to avoid any possible confusion. If we used it half the time, it would be inconsistent. But it's no big deal.
::Similarly, no big deal. Except that it ''looked'' like an error. You've done a lot of useful changes, recently... A ''lot''... Which is not a bad thing, I must add. Occasionally I've seen what (I thought!) you intended to say, and I've helped out with a misplaced word or two. And I honestly do not feel like OCs read correctly in many circumstances. How would you even OC something like "...you should paint it red, yellow or, maybe, orange"?
::The comma already does a lot of heavy lifting, four or five different uses can occur in the same sentence, with it commonly doing duty as a sub-clause parenthetical (except without the clear open/close distinction of an actual parenthetical) ''as well as'' conjunction-replacement within a list. You will find many instances of non-OCed lists on the site. In fact I find the "Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd..." bit, below this edit box, to be the exception and not the rule.
::Anyhoo... I 'corrected' an example, but did not re'correct' it once you made it obvious what rule you were working to. I think you're less right than me, naturally, even if I wouldn't say that you're more wrong. ;) But I thought I'd make you a brief note of my thoughts rather than edit-warring the issue. Less brief, now, but I hope you still take it in good humour. (Oh, yeah, I'm sort of Ok with Oxford Spelling, insofar as it's mostly what I use naturally. Except for the "-ize" bit. That and their Comma are totally against how I was taught at school, a number of decades ago. :P ) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.71|172.71.242.71]] 15:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
:::You really seem to care about this a lot more than I do, if you want feel free to revert my edit back. I'm not even sure why we're here talking about commas lol
:::I'm no expert and I just like commas. Thanks for checking my edits, I think I've seen a few of your corrections. I have a lot of free time at the moment and I seem to like fixing up unorganized things here --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

== Science Girl/Hairbun ==

You may have noted that several of the Talk pages attached to those you changed already had discussions about whether someone was Hairbun or (a possibly grown-up version of) Science Girl, and you had people like Kynde support the change ''to'' treating her as Science Girl. No skin off my nose, but I'm not sure your arguments are strong enough to support your broad sweep changes in that regard. I think I'd side with "bun with trailing hair" being SG (regardless of apparent age/maturity, as the description only really says ''usually'' a child, whether you take that as prescriptivist or descriptivist) but not enough that I'd reverse your considerable efforts in this matter. But on the off-chance that you hadn't noticed the prior discussions and conclusions, before making your own assessment. FYI, only. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.204|172.71.178.204]] 14:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

:I will properly reply to you tomorrow since it's midnight here. Btw thanks for letting me know these hyperlinks were rendered correctly, and for fixing my 1 typo <s>(after i corrected 100)</s>
::Guys, some things may be being taken too seriously. Assuming [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1608:_Hoverboard&diff=prev&oldid=317396 this was the 'one error'], yeah, the Pedant's Curse hits us all, that's the point. Easy to see how it was done (read as "a Category:Interactive..." rather than "an interactive", or whatever). Happens to the best of us, when concentrating on loads of other things. Not sure about the Jill thing, at all, myself, but that discussion is probably for soewhere else. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.158|172.69.79.158]] 22:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

:::Nonononono I wasn't serious when I thanked you about the typo, I was also just kidding. I was joking about how after I corrected a ton of typos I added one more.
:::On the main topic you brought up: I think Jill's main characteristics (I'll talk about why I renamed her) are that she is a child, she is usually interested in science, and has always one or two buns with trailing hair. [[Hairbun]] isn't as defined as Jill: she just has a bun. This is what the page [[Hairbun]] (written entirely by Kynde, I haven't reformatted to remove the bullet points yet), say about the bun:
----
:::*Her appearance, apart from her glasses, can also change.
:::**In 703: Honor Societies, 708: Sex Dice, 1511: Spice Girl, 1601: Isolation and in every instance in 1608: Hoverboard her hair looks somewhat different, curly and with some kind of ponytail, but since '''her main distinguishing characteristic is the hair bun''', these comics are included.
:::[...]
:::*There are some characters with hair buns that are not Hairbun:
:::**Since she is a grown woman, she should not be confused with Jill or any other small girls with hair bun like in 1584: Moments of Inspiration.
----
:::And on the Page for Jill, before I ever touched it, it said:
:::*As she is usually also clearly a child she usually cannot be confused with Hairbun
----
:::Kynde mentioned [[1511: Spice Girl]] and [[1601: Isolation]] as featuring Hairbun and not Jill, but they look exactly like a grown-up Jill. Plus, on the gallery section on [[Hairbun]] (I'm working on adding back a better one since the old one was kinda broken UPDATE 11:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC): Added the gallery back with vector images), this was the first picture of Hairbun:
:::[[File:Hair Bun Girl with curly hair and ponytail.png]]

:::So, to recap: Hairbun has always had a version with a bun with trailing hair, but it was inconsistent between comics, so I settled on Jill is a girl that always has trailing hair and Hairbun is an adult that sometimes has trailing hair.

:::On the topic of renaming Jill:
:::*I searched the wiki for Jill and found 3 discussions. One of them ended up "why world we even create a page for that girl, there aren't many comics featuring her.", but didn't criticize the name too much iirc
:::*We did the same thing for [[Danish]]. The only time she was given ''any'' name ("Danish in the sense of "darling" iirc), that was the name used.
:::*If we change our minds and Jill also becomes a woman, we don't have to remove the "girl" part.
:::*I'm not sure about this, but I think she's slowing being added more and more outside science comics.

:::Wow this was long --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

== In reply to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2794:_Alphabet_Notes&curid=26437&diff=321127&oldid=320916 this query]... ==

There's {{w|Welsh orthography|the Welsh}}, at the very least! (Well, you did ask! Even if it's truly not so relevent. ;) ) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.159|172.70.86.159]] 11:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:Lol. TIL! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 20:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

== Plural animals ==

Following on from Ferret->Ferrets, what about the last remaining singular that is Category:Apatosaurus? (I must admit, all your edits/re-edits are making my head spin, as worthy as they often are, but this seems like the next logical step that I thought you might have done to finish that particular neatening job.) But I'll leave it up to you as to whether it's Apatosauruses, Apatosaurii or whatever else you might consider most appropriate... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.98|172.70.85.98]] 10:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
:I actually thought about it, and I came to the conclusion that I don't know what the plural of that word is. Feel free to research if there's a "right" word and rename that category :)
:> (I must admit, all your edits/re-edits are making my head spin,
:Yeah I don't really organize everything I want to change beforehand, so whenever i notice a little thing is missing, I add it to every page that needs it. I guess it's easier to review my edits in bulk from a page's version history lol --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

== Username ==
I spotted a spam-like user named "Papyrus". [[User:ChristmasGospel|ChristmasGospel]] ([[User talk:ChristmasGospel|talk]]) 21:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:Interesting, i edited that comic's page yesterday. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
== Community portal spam ==
The spammers seem to be deleting text from Community Portal. [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]] ([[User talk:ConscriptGlossary|talk]]) 07:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks, but I couldn't find any recent example concerning me. Do you mind giving an example? --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Possible Adminship? ==

Hi FaviFake, I’m Victoria. I’m planning on reaching out to Jeff via Twitter/X because there’s a long list of things that only he can do. You can see the list at my [[User:42.book.addict#To_Do_List_for_Jeff|user page]]. One of these tasks is promoting more admins. Seeing as you are quite active, and have done quite a lot of edits (top 10 in CS score-wow!), would you like to be mentioned in my message as a possible admin candidate? [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 17:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
: Oh hey, thanks for messaging me! I started caring a lot for this site about a year ago, went on a complete pause for a few months, and came back this week. You seem very active, love to see some new active users! I saw your message on the community portal saying you were trying to find a way to contact Jeff. That's actually something I've thought about doing for a long time but never actually tried since not even Davidy22 was able to contact him at one point iirc.
:Anyway, yes, I'd love to be an admin for this site since there are so many things I can't do as a user (i have my own to-do list, which includes 1) actually deleting pages in Pages to delete and 2) improving/fixing the comic templates and Main page).
: So yeah, I wish you good luck contacting him! My only advice is to use any possible way to (or to get someone else to) contact him without worrying too much about annoying him. His last contribution was more than a year ago, he can totally jump back in for a moment after being unreachable for so long. I really like your message, it's very well-written, now the hard part is getting it to him. Asking Davidy22 for his email address (or finding it online) sounds like a great idea to me. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 22:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Trivia below transcript ==
The FAQ page says that trivia is below transcript. I'm very sorry about this. [[User:ConscriptGlossary|ConscriptGlossary]] ([[User talk:ConscriptGlossary|talk]]) 00:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Nono don't be sorry, you're totally right! I came back here after months of being offline and forgot about the order! I realised my mistake yesterday but didn't have the time to go look for the article to revert my edit. Please revert it if you get the chance to do it before me. [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 04:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::There, I should've fixed it now. I see you also reverted my edit, thanks! [[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 04:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== On the Ghosts in the NavPane ==

When I saw 42's inclusion of Ghosts in the Character NavPane, I was pondering asking for Demons and Aliens (the blob-monster types, or near variations, from both UFO-ish comics and far-future) to be added alongside.

But I agree with you that they're not ''really'' minor characters. Yet I think they (all of them) deserve a slot there, as they are as much a feature as the (Animals/)Squirrels section. Originally thought to suggest "Groups" (could include "Multiple Cueballs" and even "Children" for groups with otherwise un-IDed child characters), which you could still ''also'' add (but for human-character groups only), but now thinking "Other Beings" could hold Ghosts, Demons and Aliens (maybe "Future Beings" separate from the latter, or at least the differently-futuristic "Floating Orbs" as ''another'' other classification category in there). As a section between Real People and Animals, I thought, unless it's decided best to put them after Animals.

Food for thought, anyway. You (and 42, and maybe others) may have your own ideas on this, and I wouldn't (and can't) spring my own ideas upon you by suddenly just editing the appropriate source. It probably needs discussion. I nearly put my earlier thoughts in the Community Portal area, but as you're personally active on this at the moment I thought it might be easier for you to ponder if I finally commited it to writing just here. (Feel free to move this contrib/advertise it wider, if you see fit.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.91.62|172.70.91.62]] 14:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:Just popping in to add my 2 cents-I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of having “other beings” in the navbox. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 16:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hey there, thanks a lot for messaging me about this. I disagree with you for one specific reason: the navbox was initially supposed to catalogue the recurring characters in the comics which displayed more or less the same behaviours across comics, such as [[Black Hat]] and [[Beret Guy]]. It then expanded to include real people, such as politicians, which still remained the same characters across different comics. The animal section is different in that some of them are the same animals across comics (such as bobcats and red spiders, for example), but since we had to include them, we included EVERY animal, even when they were completely different every time, because it'd look weird if the only animals there were the specific ones i mentioned.
::If we included a section such as Other beings that includes ghosts, I believe it would be filled with characters that are not the same in every comic they appear in and the navbox would completely lose its intended purpose. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

== (Whoops, forgot a header!) ...FYC ==

If you agree with {{diff|356369|these additions/changes}}, with or without other adjustments, I was wondering if you'd like to do the respective changes to the Incomplete Article category page, as I find it's semi-protected and I'm thus locked out from the edits that I thought I might duplicate there too (in my IP state – yes, I know I could change this, but I'm happier just to leave it up to you/whoever). Anyway, for your consideration. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.202.75|162.158.202.75]] 17:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
: Done! Thanks. I removed a few technical details. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

== Interesting streamlined 'table furniture', but... ==

...I'm wondering about the current (slight) usage differences between:
style="text-align:center" | {{{1}}}
and:
style="white-space:nowrap" |
Do you need to add the Param1 to the nowrap/remove if from the text-alignment?

And what if someone wanted no-wrap+centre at the same time? There maybe ''are'' ways to combine <code><nowiki>{{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{nw}}</nowiki></code>, but it seems non-trivial to to do. (Unless you make a <code><nowiki>{{nwac}}</nowiki></code>, but then where do you end?) I'm wondering if you should try it without the |-character.

Let's see if that ''could'' work:
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ Test
|-
! Foo !! Bar !! Baz
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || style="text-align:center" style="white-space:nowrap" | This is as if using variations <code><nowiki>{{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>{{nw}}</nowiki></code> as rendered without the pipe-character or inconsistent parameter, which is tricky to demonstrate with the actual templates.|| More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || style="text-align:center" | style="white-space:nowrap" | This is how <code><nowiki>{{ac|{{nw}} <foo>}}</nowiki></code> might look || More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || {{ac|{{nw}} This is how <code><nowiki>{{ac|{{nw}} <foo>}}</nowiki></code> ''does'' look, using the current state of the templates.
----
<s>''NB. Why is it in bold? Is that a normal feature of a style of text-align:center?''</s>}}
| More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || style="white-space:nowrap" | style="text-align:center" | This is how <code><nowiki>{{nw}} {{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> might look || More normal text of a normal style
|-
| Normal text of a normal style || {{nw}} {{ac|This is how <code><nowiki>{{nw}} {{ac|<foo>}}</nowiki></code> ''does'' look, using the current state of the templates.}}
----
<s>''Also goes bold, I notice!''</s>
| More normal text of a normal style
|}

So, yes, it looks like it might be better to just remove the pipe (or pipe-and-param) and rely on the table-writer to just put in the relevent bare style-giving {{}} (or {{}}s) before the pipe. (I must look into why there's unexpected boldness. I don't know if that comes from the way you templated it or as an associated function of the aligh-center style. But it doesn't appear when I do it 'raw'.) Anyway, food for thought, over to you. It looks like I ''could'' edit your templates, but that might be rude, and would of course instantly break whatever it is you're currently using them (singly) for. That's the ''What If?'' table, I suppose? Anyway, you can both 'fix' how they work and adjust how they are invoked, rather than leaving me to guess about the latter. ;) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 19:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:PS: Yes, I have just checked, and, yes you've added (apparently ''after'' I saw and copied the original {{template|ac}} for my own testing and emulating purposes!) the bolding to the aligh-centering template. That part of the mystery is solved! :P [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.49|162.158.74.49]] 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:PPS: I know what happened. I copied the (slightly '''formatted''') 'plaintext' as it appeared in the template. If I'd have edited it and copied the wikisource then I'd have grabbed the <nowiki>'''formatted''</nowiki> as you already had it by the time I passed by. Don't mind me, it was just something that made me wonder. Probably moreso than the thing that I was ''actually'' trying to prod and poke and solve! IOW: Ignore me. On this bit, at least! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.205.151|172.68.205.151]] 19:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::I love how interested you are about this! Honestly i'm not really sure what exactly it is you're asking, but you seem very smart so do whatever you want! My only request is that the {{:ac}} thing keeps working as expected, so i don't have to change the table again. I had forgotten about the {{:nw}} thing, you can delete it or change it or do anything else, I don't use it anymore. Feel free to add to the documentation that these are just for 1 table and might break everything if used anywhere else. Or, if they already work everywhere, great! I remember I created them expecting the entire page to be destroyed when used, and being pleasantly surprised when they worked. So yeah go wild! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 21:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm not going to make any change without taking time to check your tables and making sure the appropriate change doesn't inflict damage on your attempts to curate the tables you're probably using it for.
:::But, in short, I understand that you're streamlining the (often longwinded) style="" statements, an admirble task. In the structure of "| cell || another cell || etc", you're doing something to save from having to do cumbersome "| cell || style="this-style: that; that-style: that; the-other-style: the.other" | another cell || etc", all of which makes editing 'difficult'. (I tend to do such things in Notepad, or whatever separate text editor I have, which lets me add temporary whitespace and use with no-wrap on the markup while I'm working on it, rather than in this textbox editor.)
::: But the single-pipe that formats the cell isn't a ''great'' difficulty to maintain (indeed, it is useful to line up). As such I'd suggest "| cell || <nowiki>{{??}}</nowiki> | another cell || etc" would be as good. i.e. leave the pipe (intended for the table-cell) out of the template. For the no-wrap version, that's easy enough. Though I do understand that you want to put bold-format about the cell contents, so that's why you give it as a param and explicitly bold the Param1 as you pass it back out.
::: Maybe the solution to ''that'' is to also add (to the style, along with the text-align:center) the "font-weight: bold" doublet. Then "... || <format(s), as templates and/or raw> | Cell Text || ..." doesn't ''need'' to 'enclose' the Cell Text in any way.
::: But making the change from something that expects to transclude the range of the template "... || format | Cell Text || ..." to "... || format | Cell Text || ..." obviously requires that each and every table-cell item that uses "... || <nowiki>{{template|Cell Text}}</nowiki> || ..." to be converted to "... || <nowiki>{{template}}</nowiki> | Cell Text || ...", or... it'll definitely not work as it was originally set.
::: Anyway, that's just my own vision of how you can do what you seem to have wanted to, without introducing more complications. As the cell-formatting gladly accepts multiple statements of the form style="..." (it adds <code>style="..." style="..." style="..."</code> together, much as <code>style="...; ...; ..."</code> does), an editor now has complete freedom to compound the two format-templates you created. And any additional ones that might be useful. Such ones to usefully colour cell backgrounds as red/yellow/green (for use on the various Confusion Tables), something that I sometimes take a couple of goes to do... not least because I habitually spell 'color' as 'colour'..! ;)
::: ...but that's just to explain so that (should you/anybody else wish to follow my own instincts on the matter), you have some decent idea of what I'm getting at. There are probably other ways of doing it. Templates can be made to detect and extract pipes, so that "... || <nowiki>{{template1|{{templete2|Cell Text}}}}</nowiki> || ..." ''or'' "... || <nowiki>{{template2|{{templete1|Cell Text}}}}</nowiki> || ..." would equally produce "... || templateOneOrTwoFormat templateTwoOrOneFormat | Cell Text || ...", but that would take a degree of of unwieldy parameter-processing functions (that I'd have to work out, probably would involve some subst-function, but might depend upon what's available in the installed mediawiki version). I just think you could avoid all that trouble! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.118|162.158.74.118]] 22:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Forgot to say, that for what you want to use it for, there's ''another'' way:
{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
|+ Example 2
|-
! Number (Centered) !! Foo !! Bar (Centered) !! Baz
|-
! 1
| Normal text of a normal style
! Some text of whatever size (centered)
| More normal text of a normal style
|-
! 2
| Normal text of a normal style
! Some text of whatever size (also centered, though not so obviously so)
| More normal text of a normal style
|}
:::... This is only possible by newlining each new cell, in the example (you can't do "! cell || cell !! cell || cell", you have to line-break it as you change from "!"-/"|"-starting cell-groups), but it isn't really so great a loss to do so.
:::The "wikitable" class gives these 'header cells' a different background too, but (if you really don't like that) it that can be adjusted in various other ways (including with scope="col", I think), or you can leave the wikitable class off (it centres and bolds, but doesn't give cell-borders) and re-add the whole-table bordering style that this now leaves out. But you really don't want me listing ''every'' idea I had, just this one was the other (template-free) option to enforcing centre-aligning bold text on ''certain'' cells. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.119|162.158.74.119]] 23:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Huh, I was actually thinking of doing the opposite of what you're suggesting: include even more pipes inside the template so the editor is cleaner and easier to use. (UPDATE: this probably worse than the other option you gave at the end, see below). So instead of this:

|-
<nowiki>| {{ac|4}} || </nowiki>

::::You would just use this:

|-
<nowiki>{{ac|4}}</nowiki>

::::And it would contain all the pipes needed. I guess then we would have to update the documentation to point out that this template's use case is extremely narrow. Also, if you want to see how it is currently used, the table is on my user page! That's the only place where it's used

::::Since you seem very interested in templates, What do you think of the idea of a creating a template like these:

<nowiki>{{yt|YTNUMBER (1, 2, 3, etc)|YTLINK|VIDEOTITLE (optional)}}</nowiki>

::::It would be used in the column that we still need to create. It would also colour the cell in '''red'''. I was also thinking of doing a similar thing for the What If? books:

<nowiki>{{bk|WHICH-BOOK|CHAPTER-NUMBER|CHAPTER-TITLE (if different)}}</nowiki>

::::For example, it would look like this: (This one would also colour the cell based on the book, e.g., green for WI?1, yellow for WI?2, blue for WI10th ed.)

<nowiki>{{book|2|69|Jellyfish}}</nowiki>

What If? 2, chapter '''69: Jellyfish'''

::::Would you be able to create something like this? I know nothing about templates, and i doubt I'll be able to ask chatgpt to do everything for me correctly. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 07:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::> Forgot to say, that for what you want to use it for, there's ''another'' way:
:::::Oh, i think i had forgotten to read this part!! This seems very interesting! I should try that, since it seems much simpler. --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::'''Update:''' {{Done}} I applied your suggestion, now the numbers are in their own row:
|-
!1
| The rest of the table
--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 10:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

== YouTube template ==
Hey FaviFake, on the <code><nowiki>{{yt}}</nowiki></code> template, you asked for help on fixing the code of the template. What help do you need to “improve” it? I’m willing to help now that I’m not sick, as I was last week. '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 18:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you! Glad to hear you're healthy. That message was mostly a joke, but it is in fact barely held together. (Try modifying the hyperlink that's displayed when a title isn't provided, somehow what you add gets duplicated??) If you have the time and know how to make it more reliable and easily editable in the future, please do! I am honstly scared to touch it fearing it might explode.

:Buuut, to be fair there is one template that i desperately needed help with, and that is [[:Template:book]]. I wasted a ton of time to try to get it to change the cell background, and it never worked, so i decided to create [[Template:book1]], [[Template:book2]], [[Template:book3]], [[Template:book4]], and these do work beaytifully, but are harder to edit in bulk. (I still have profound hatred towards [[Template:book]]...). If you actually manage to do what i wanted (which i'm not sure is even clear after the all the mess i've made... ask me if you can't figure it out!), I would be very grateful. PS. I'm not sure if i should warn you, given my very low ability to create templates, but it's definitely not easy, imo.

:I'm not sure how skilled you are at template editing, so if you want, you can absolutely continue uploading the What If? thumbnails like you did a few days ago! I just added [[User:FaviFake|a new batch of articles]] (about 60) thanks to some annoyingly complex jailbreaking of Google's NotebookLM. The new table of course includes the quick 100px link to upload a file. Again, thanks for reaching out! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::The YT link appears to be going to <nowiki>[[whatever the name of the YouTube video is called]]</nowiki> and not acting as a [youtube.com filler thingy] linking to a YouTube video. I’m going to hit the books on template writing and try to see if I can do anything about it. Cheers! '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 03:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh great, that's broken too. I didn't even realise it. Thanks!--[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 04:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Partly because you've removed the bit about how to better sort the book-column elements, but are using the same trick in the youtube-column, and partly because it's easier (more on that in a moment), I've just modified the {{template|yt}} to give it the sort value (of article number) directly. Have not removed the expression test to make "6th video ..." into "06th video ...", for sorting purposes, but I feel confident that you ''can'' do that (and remove the comment about making it give "006th video ...", in future, should that become necessary) if you now so wish.
:For the books, I was thinking that if, instead of <code>="<nowiki>{{{1|0}}}</nowiki>"</code>, you could maybe use <code>="<nowiki>{{#expr:10000+{{{1|0}}}}}</nowiki>"</code> for ''What If?'' (in {{template|book1}}) and <code>="<nowiki>{{#expr:20000+{{{1|0}}}}}</nowiki>"</code> for ''What If? 2'' (in {{template|book2}}), to let it sort by book ''and then'' chapter within book...
:For ''What If? 10th Anniversary Edition'' ({{template|book3}}), I was thinking if you could make the added-to number 11000. Though anything from above 10000+<last chapter number> and below 20000-<last chapter number> would do (and 15000 would work), it leaves room to make any appearance of the 15th anniversary, 20th anniversary, 42nd anniversary, ..., 95th anniversary be able to use the mnemonic offsets of 11500+, 12000+, 14200+, ..., 19500+.. ;) Obviously, it would need revamping if there becomes a centenary edition of Book 1 (or any version of it ever gets ''so many'' "bonus chapters" that it breaks out of its own sequence into the next extant anniversary edition. But you'd need to start adding 100 newly-numbered chapters ''per year'' to do that, so probably not likely. But, right now, the sorting on the "Exclusive to ''What If? 10th Anniversary Edition''" line sorts ''before'' the "NNth chapter of ''What If?''" lines. The above should fix that...
:And the format can be used for other (future?) books and their (possible) reissues: For ''What If? '''N''''', reissued '''YY''' years after the original, that's the number "NYY00", to which you add the chapter number. Fairly futureproofed, but if Randall ''ever'' publishes anything that makes you need to make the offset "NNYYY000" (e.g. for the quarter-of-a-millenium reissue of ''What If? 15'', having a total of 512 chapters being 15250000+[1..512]) then I reckon the requisite changes will be easy enough to handle as and when, swapping in the expanded offset. And... hey... if they're still being written, ''and'' published, then I can only hope I'm still around to be able to add that edition to my bookshelf!
:You could even redo the {{template|book}} idea (parameters of ...|book=#|chapter=#|optional:edition=#?|...) to only ever need to maintain the one source with ''all'' this flexibility. You've already got experience (by the 1st/2nd/3rd/Nth code) with what's needed to translate Book Number(+Edition Number, if applicable) into unique background colour codes.
:The big problem, though, is still the non-numeric chapter 'numbers' in ''WI?2''. I have two (or three) different thoughts about that.
:*For only the numeric bits (currently, in the test for less-than-10, etc; in the above for within the <code>data-sort-value="..."</code>) you might want to switch <code><nowiki>{{{1|0}}}</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>{{#if:{{#ifexpr:{{{1|0}}}}}|99|{{{1|0}}}}}{{{1|0}}}</nowiki></code>... This should test the param1 value for being a valid value (or missing, when you already make it zero... though not sure for what circumstance you should consider it validly missing) and using it if it is so, or else using the value "99" (or you could have "0", or "0.5", or whatever floats your boat). Then at least you'd get ''a'' value (that doesn't cause errors), though it probably wouldn't be sorted very precisely (though appear just after/before all other chapters of the book).
:*The other idea is to use <code><nowiki>{{{effectiveChapter|{{{1|0}}}}}}</nowiki></code>, then you can append a parameter of <code>...|effectiveChapter=11.5}}</code> to a non-numeric one sitting between actual chapters 11 and 12 (I haven't checked if that's an actual example, but imagine it is...). Also, for multiple items on page-chapter, you could even have =11.51, =11.52, =11.53, etc, to retain order within the book and ''upon the page''... (You could also give effectiveChapter as "NYYCC(.optional)" format, direct, for ''all'' what if? Numbers, YYearly-editions and CChapters (with possibly sub-positions), come to that, but I don't see that as any simpler a solution as building it in.)
:*The third option would be to use (for hidden sorting-only purpose, mostly) a value of P(.optionalDecimal) either as another numeric parameter or a named one, with P as ''page number'', not chapter number. But, given how hardback vs. paperback (or just another imprint, not necessarily even a Anniversary redo, but I've got the UK edition with an additional UK foreword) ''might'' effect page numbers and/or where end-of-pages interupts any given chapter internals, it's possible that this is not consistent enough. But food for thought, maybe. Only needs to be definitively done once (or thoroughly checked and shuffled along as nevessary if redone to include other changes that require consistency).
:Any of that make sense? Hopefully I've at least given you enough examples to ponder, where not immediately obvious. I'd ''really'' rather not change all your hard work just for the sake of a minor cosmetic change with a possibly major set of retouches, which is one of the reasons why I thought I'd do just the basic Youtube 'sort assisting' bit and let those of you who have already had so much 'fun' (tweaking the table formats) decide if and how you make full use of it. Assuming it isn't (differently) broken, for whatever reason may crop up, it shouldn't be a problem if you do nothing at all more with it (either in the {{template|yt}} or {{template|book#}}s). [[Special:Contributions/172.71.241.26|172.71.241.26]] 14:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

== What If Chapters ==
Hey FaviFake, there are some What If? Chapters that aren’t included in the blog. Are we going to add them to the table? '''[[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]][[User talk:42.book.addict|Talk to me!]]''' 17:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Great timing! You sent me this message while i was in the process of replying to the question. I'm not good at prioritising, I should've definitely responded before doing other edits. Check out my <s>list of questions for y'all</s> reply above! --[[User:FaviFake|FaviFake]] ([[User talk:FaviFake|talk]]) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Talk:3008: Proterozoic Rocks

2024-11-07T16:53:06Z

172.70.160.219:

So the last panel refers to the unseen birth of a rock? How are rocks even born?:
:Farther - does is mean father back, or further ahead in time? If ahead it could mean Randall do not think there will be any eyes left to see in 500 million years time. Which is not unlikely. Earth will not stay inhabitable much longer than that (probably 800 million years, then the seas will have evaporated). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:A few ways. Fusion likely formed many elements, and neutron star death possibly the rest of the naturally occurring ones. When those started sticking together they would form rocks. The type likely being referred to here is probably sediment being compressed and former a cohesive stone, magma crystalizing, or compression of the latter two types of rocks into different types of rocks. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.124.222|172.71.124.222]] 06:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think in this context it was by up welling magma and they are only rare because plate tectonics and erosion has recycled 99.9X% of them. [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 07:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:First the mommy rock and the daddy rock fall in love... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.175.16|172.71.175.16]] 15:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Makes me think of the manga ''Houseki No Kuni'' (''Land of the Lustrous'') and how effortlessly it depicts thousands and millions of years passing in a blink. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.228|162.158.159.228]] 08:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Guess Randall didn't want to acknowledge the results. Can't say I blame him. [[User:CalibansCreations|'''Caliban''']] ([[User talk:CalibansCreations|talk]]) 08:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well it did end in an all black panel... Like his mood. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:Maybe he thinks she can still win? [[Special:Contributions/172.71.31.39|172.71.31.39]] 13:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:Oh, I think everything in this comic speaks that Randall is acutely aware of the results. Meditating on eon-old stones is a mental health exercise. I feel him. - and gave the explanation a try. [[User:Transgalactic|Transgalactic]] ([[User talk:Transgalactic|talk]]) 13:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I ''like'' that title text. It has a poetic quality. (It refers to when various part of animal anatomy first evolved, but does so in a really nice way.) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.24|162.158.74.24]] 08:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the explanation should at least include the other interpretation of "farther", namely "farther back in time". I think that's the more obvious one, personally: he's saying these rocks are a billion years old, eyes evolved 500 million years ago and that vast abyss of time "stretches back as far as the eye can see ... and then 500 million years farther" [back]. As in, these rocks existed for 500 million years in a world where there were no eyes. Right? I don't know how the future got involved, it seems to be pretty clearly about the past.[[User:ModelD|ModelD]] ([[User talk:ModelD|talk]]) 14:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, that description of 'farther back in time' really seems to make more sense here, since the comic talks about how the rocks were there for roughly that long before eyes existed, and it keeps with the poetic, reflective nature of the rest of the comic, while the future interpretation feels like a bit of a jump from one theme to another. [[User:UnbiasedBrigade|UnbiasedBrigade]] ([[User talk:UnbiasedBrigade|talk]]) 15:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
: I concur. This is the interpretation I had before coming to explainxkcd. I think that efforts to make the cartoon be about current events impose a meaning on it that the cartoonist is not yet ready to express. The cartoon appeared very late, and (speaking of imposing a meaning on a cartoon) I imagine Randall struggled mightily to come up with an idea that was not some variation on a fireball of wrath consuming the USA and everything in it. I would also remove the climate-change reference as an overreaching interpretation. For what it's worth, Randall's living depends on computer use by his audience, and computer use is a massive contributor to anthropogenic climate change. I have read repeatedly that, in order to persuade someone to adopt a desired behavior, the proponent has to model it. In this case, by massive reductions in personal energy usage ... which will simultaneously make your life miserable and put you out of the public eye, where no one can see the correct behavior you're modeling. How I learned to stop worrying and love carbon dioxide. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.42.96|162.158.42.96]] 15:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
: There's really no good reason for imaginging the "further" is "further forward" if you've just been talking of looking back. Imagine being given directions to go back towards where you noted a prior landmark and then go further, that wouldn't mean return to here and then go onward again. As such, I've reworded the "future extinction" bit entirely in the other direction (it might mean a different treatment of the "mood explanation" now in the Trivia, but meshes with the comic itself). I pondered adding that, even before 'eyes', there were different phases of light/illumination (and/or shadow) sensitivity that would have meant that day/night (or at least hot vs. cold rocks) and things such as looming predators or overhanging shelter would still have been 'sensed', so being "dark-blind" would have been not necessarily a thing, but instead I just alluded to the Sun still shining (or glowing lava still illuminating, as with the Moon and its pre-fragments whenever they were up above) to aid an actual visit to that era by a time-tourist, and that it's just a selective regression (or a limited degree of retro-posession of any contemporary entity) that leads to "having nothing to see with/by". But to properly expand these extended philosophies in the Explanation would probably clutter up the existing text too much. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.219|172.70.160.219]] 16:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Um. Pretty sure this comic has nothing to do with the 2024 election. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.174.23|162.158.174.23]] 15:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
: It seems at least mildly relevant. It's a huge, recent event; of a sort that Randall is known to care a lot about; and the meditative mood being evoked seems appropriate. I wouldn't call it an "election comic" or anything, but the trivial is certainly relevant. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.58.132|172.69.58.132]] 16:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

: I would not be surprised to see this sort of thing unrelated to the current events (it shares a viewpoint given in such as [[1198: Geologist]], which is <s>almost</s> worth an in-article back reference), but I also think that it's not unlikely that the "mood" of the piece (looking back into "the black", perhaps) is prompted by what we can assume Randall is feeling about current events. Not quite the old "Sad Comics" category, but reflective, and different from what we might have seen under more jubilant (for Randall, at least, but also for many others) times down the different trouser-leg of time. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.219|172.70.160.219]] 16:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I read the 16:14 version https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3008:_Proterozoic_Rocks&oldid=356138 , decided to edit the article and didn't notice that it had already been changed. I don't know if I should remove my edit or merge the 2 edits? [[User:Rps|Rps]] ([[User talk:Rps|talk]]) 16:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:If this was my edit (regarding the "Further back"), I might remerge (to my satisfaction) if you haven't already.
:I've noticed, recently, that there's ''occasionally'' an inadvertent way past Edit Conflicts without a warning (though I got one just here and just now, because of your edit just above!), which I'm sure used to be better handled. But could just be one of those things. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.219|172.70.160.219]] 16:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

1122: Electoral Precedent

2024-11-07T14:41:06Z

172.70.160.219: Comic predates the 2024 cycle, so of course many 2024 details are not relevent to the precedent being stated. But rephrasing Clevelend's asequential presidential precedent statement to hold true without obvious future edits needed.

{{comic
| number = 1122
| date = October 17, 2012
| title = Electoral Precedent
| image = electoral_precedent.png
| titletext = No white guy who's been mentioned on Twitter has gone on to win.
}}

==Explanation==

During election season in U.S. presidential elections — and especially in election night coverage — it is common for the media to make comments like the ones set out in the first panel of this comic. [[Randall Munroe|Randall]] is demonstrating the problem with making such statements, many of which simply come down to coincidence.

After the first panel the next 56 panels in this comic refer to each one of the {{w|United States presidential election#Electoral college results|56 presidential elections}} in U.S. history before {{w|Barack Obama|Obama's}} re-election in 2012. The panels depict a pre-election commentator noting a quality or condition that has never occurred to a candidate until one of the candidates in that election broke the streak. In other words, one can always find at least one unique thing about a candidate who has gone on to win (or in some cases, lose) or the circumstances under which they won (or lost) that is unique from all previous winners (or losers). It's worth noting that some of these 'firsts' were truly precedent-setting (such as the first incumbent losing, the first president to win a third term, the first Catholic president, etc.), but the fact that they hadn't happened was no assurance that there wouldn't be a first time. As the years pass on, these 'streaks' become more and more nested and complicated, and then brought by Randall to the point of absurdity by pointing out very trivial things, such as "No Democratic {{w|incumbent}} without combat experience has ever beaten someone whose first name is worth more in {{w|Scrabble}}" (1996).

The flaw made by pundits while reporting such streaks is that there will always be ''something'' that has never happened before in an election, and they purport to suggest that these things are related to the candidate's win or loss. Randall considers this a logical flaw. A common one is, as noted in several panels, candidates can't win without winning certain states. The question, however, is one of {{w|Correlation does not imply causation|cause or effect}}.

Given that there have only been 56 elections, there are always going to be things that haven't happened before. If you go out looking for them, you're sure to find some. There is no magic about why these events haven't happened. In most cases, it is merely a coincidence.

In the last two panels, two more statements like the previous are given. They were both true before the {{w|United States presidential election, 2012|election in 2012}} on November the 6th. The comic came out in the middle of the campaign on October the 17th. The statements were constructed so that the first predicts that Obama can't win over {{w|Mitt Romney}}, and the second that he cannot lose. As Obama won the election he thus ended the streak ''Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers'' whereas the other streak is still valid.

The title text refers to the fact that {{w|Twitter}} was founded in 2006. Obama won in 2008, so at the time of the comic it was true that no white male person mentioned on Twitter had ever gone on to win the presidency; although certainly some former presidents, all of whom were white males, have subsequently been mentioned on Twitter. This streak was broken in the next election year when Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

During these last four weeks before the election, Randall posted no fewer than four comics related to this election. The others are: [[1127: Congress]], [[1130: Poll Watching]] and [[1131: Math]].

In 2020, Randall posted an update to this comic: [[2383: Electoral Precedent 2020]].

===Table of Broken Precedents===

{| border =1 width=100% cellpadding=5 class="wikitable"
|-
! Year !! Broken Precedent !! Explanation !! Validity
|-
| 1788
| No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
| Discounting the Articles of Confederation and its {{w|President of the Continental Congress|president}}, Washington is the first president of the United States.{{Citation needed}}
| True
|-
| 1792
| No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
| Washington is the first person who had a second term. He was unopposed so there was no challenger.
| True
|-
| 1796
| No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
| Washington had false teeth, made of human teeth and other materials. His successor Adams, despite having tooth decay, refused to wear false teeth.
| True
|-
| 1800
| No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
| Adams is the first president not to have a second term, due to signing the unpopular {{w|Alien and Sedition Acts}}. He was defeated by the challenger, Jefferson.
| True
|-
| 1804
| No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
| The 2 previous incumbents were Washington, who was unopposed, and Adams, who lost as an incumbent (to Jefferson).
| True
|-
| 1808
| No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
| While George Washington served in the House of Burgesses, Madison served as congressman for Virginia's 5th district from 1789 to 1793 and the 15th District from 1793 to 1797 in the U. S. Congress.
| True
|-
| 1812
| No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
| While it is true New York voted against Madison but he still won, New York did not vote for Washington due to an {{w|1788-89_United_States_presidential_election#Failure_of_New_York_to_appoint_electors|internal dispute}}.
| False
|-
| 1816
| No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
| Despite popular misconception, Washington did not wear a wig, but in fact powdered his hair white.
| False
|-
| 1820
| No one who wears pants instead of {{w|Culottes|breeches}} can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
| The first 5 presidents, including Monroe, all wore breeches.
| False
|-
| 1824
| No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
| Jackson won the plurality of the popular vote and Electoral College. But as it was a four way election, he did not achieve a majority - so the vote went to Congress, who elected John Quincy Adams.
| True
|-
| 1828
| Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
| Jackson was from South Carolina, while all previous presidents were from Massachusetts or Virginia.
| True
|-
| 1832
| The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
| Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were the only re-elected presidents at that time, and they were all Virginians.
| True
|-
| 1836
| New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
| Martin Van Buren is the first president from the state of New York.
| True
|-
|1840
| No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
| He was 68 and the first over 65, and died of pneumonia 31 days after giving the longest inauguration to date.
| True
|-
|1844
| No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
| If "home state" refers to the state of residence, Polk is the first, losing Tennessee to Clay but took 15 of the 26 states including New York. However, if you count it as state of birth, Jackson and Harrison already did.
| Maybe
|-
|1848
| As goes Mississippi, so goes the nation. ...Until 1848.
| Prior to 1848, every candidate who had won the state of Mississippi had won the election, with the only exception being the 1824 election, where John Quincy Adams was elected by Congress, due to no one winning the Electoral College. In 1848, Lewis Cass won the state of Mississippi, but lost the election to Zachary Taylor.
| True
|-
|1852
|New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
|Pierce is the first candidate from the Democratic Party from New England, specifically New Hampshire, and he won the election of 1852.
| True
|-
|1856
| No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
| While other presidents were widowers, Buchanan was the first unmarried president, being a life long bachelor.
| True
|-
|1860
| No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
| Lincoln was the first president over 6'3" president, at 6'4" tall, making him the tallest president to date.
| True
|-
|1864
|No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
|Lincoln was the first U.S. president to have a beard.
|True
|-
|1868
|No one can be president if their parents are alive. ...Until Grant.
|The veracity depends on if BOTH parents have to be alive, or if any parents are alive. If either parent can be alive, then Washington's mother, Mary Ball Washington, died four months after he became president. If both have to be alive, Grant was indeed the first president to have both parents alive when assuming office.
|Maybe
|-
|1872
|No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
|Grant was the second U.S. president (behind Lincoln) to be reelected with a beard, but only Grant was reelected during peacetime.
|True
|-
|1876
|No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
|Samuel Tilden won a majority of the popular vote, with 51%, but lost in the electoral college in a {{w|1876 United States presidential election|contested election}}, resolved by the {{w|Compromise of 1877}}. (During the election of 1824, Jackson won the popular vote but did not win more than half of it, a majority)
|True
|-
|1880
|As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
|Since being a state in 1850, the winner of California had won the election - until 1880 when Winfield Hancock won California but lost the election to James Garfield.
|True
|-
|1884
|Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
|James Blaine was the first major candidate with the first name "James" to lose an election, losing to Grover Cleveland.
|True
|-
|1888
|No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
|Grover Cleveland was the first president since the end of the Civil War to be defeated by a challenger, losing to Benjamin Harrison. Andrew Johnson was not chosen as the Democratic candidate in 1868. Ulysses S. Grant served 2 terms and did not run for a 3rd term. Rutherford B. Hayes and Chester A. Arthur (who became president after the assassination of James Garfield) did not seek reelection after their first term.
|True
|-
|1892
|No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
|Cleveland was the first (and, prior to 2025, only) president to serve two non-consecutive terms, winning the presidential election in 1884, losing in 1888 and winning in 1892.
|True
|-
|1896
|Tall Midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
|William Jennings Bryan lost the 1896 election to William McKinley. Bryan's measurements have been lost to history, but contemporary historians described him as "a tall, slender, handsome fellow".
|True
|-
|1900
|No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
|At the time, McKinley was only the 3rd Republican who was reelected (behind Lincoln and Grant). And he was the shortest of them all, at 5'7" tall.
|True
|-
|1904
|No one under 45 has been elected. ...Roosevelt was.
|At the start of his presidency, Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest president, taking office at the age of 42 when McKinley died in 1901. However, he was not elected President until 1904, by which time he was no longer under 45. The precedent was broken in 1960 when Kennedy was elected at age 43.
|False
|-
|1908
|No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
|Taft was the first Republican to win an election and not serve in the military - Lincoln served during the Black Hawk War; Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, and McKinley served in the Civil War; and Theodore Roosevelt served in the Spanish-American War.
|True
|-
|1912
|After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.
|From Lincoln's presidency to Wilson's, only one Democrat won- Grover Cleveland, who had a mustache but no beard.
|True
|-
|1916
|No Democrat has won while losing West Virginia. ...Wilson did.
|Since its statehood in 1863, Wilson is the first Democrat to lose West Virginia, but win the national election.
|True
|-
|1920
|No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
|Harding was the first sitting Senator to become President - he resigned his position as Senator to become President.
|True
|-
|1924
|No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
|'''C'''alvin '''C'''oolidge was the first with "two C's in his name". Presidents with "one C" in their names prior to Coolidge were John Quin'''c'''y Adams, Andrew Ja'''c'''kson, Za'''c'''hary Taylor, Franklin Pier'''c'''e, James Bu'''c'''hanan, Abraham Lin'''c'''oln, '''C'''hester A. Arthur, Grover '''C'''leveland and William M'''c'''Kinley.
|True
|-
|1928
|No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
|Smith was the first candidate to get more than 10 million votes and lose. He received over 15 million votes, but lost to Herbert Hoover, who received 21.4 million votes, and won the electoral college, 444-87.
|True
|-
|1932
|No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
|FDR was the first Democrat to win since 1919 when women secured the right to vote.
|True
|-
|1936
|No President's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
|FDR was reelected during the Great Depression when unemployment peaked at 22-25%.
|True
|-
|1940
|No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
|FDR is the first and only president to be elected for 4 terms due to his popularity/policies. This is now made impossible by the {{w|Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|22nd amendment}}, which limits a president to 2 elected terms.
|True
|-
|1944
|No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
|The United States has engaged in many minor wars near-constantly since its formation, although it being "wartime" in the country for many of these is debatable. Martin Van Buren won during the Second Seminole War, Franklin Pierce won during the Cayuse war and Apache war, James Buchanan won during Bleeding Kansas, the Third Seminole War, the Yakima War, and the Second Opium War, Grover Cleveland won during the Garza Revolution, and Woodrow Wilson won during the Border War, the Occupation of Nicaragua, the Occupation of Haiti, and the Occupation of the Dominican Republic.
|False
|-
|1948
|Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
|Although technically true, the Democrat party did not appear on the ballot in Alabama in 1948, making it impossible for them to have won under any circumstances. It's also worth noting that Alabama had consistently voted Democrat in every election since Alabama's formation as a state except for 1864, when it was in the confederate states, and in 1868 and 1872, where Ulysses S. Grant would win both times. A democrat would not lose a popular vote in Alabama while appearing on the ballot until 1968, and would not win an election while losing the vote in Alabama until 1992.
|True
|-
|1952
|No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
|Republicans won control of ''both'' the {{w|1952 United States House of Representatives elections|House}} and {{w|1952 United States Senate elections|Senate}} in 1952. This precedent would be broken in 1956 after Democrats flipped both chambers in 1954.
|True
|-
|1956
|No one can beat the same nominee a second time in a leap year rematch. ...Until Eisenhower.
|The phrase "leap year" excludes the elections of 1800 and 1900, which were not leap years in the U.S. or most other countries (although they were leap years in Russia, which was still using the Julian calendar).
|True
|-
|1960
|Catholics can't win. ...Kennedy beat Nixon.
|The only other Catholic to be nominated until 1960 was Democrat Alfred E. Smith in 1928.
|True
|-
|1964
|Every Republican who's taken Louisiana has won. ...Until Goldwater.
|Prior to 1964, only two Republicans had won Louisiana: Rutherford Hayes in 1876 and Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. Both won, however in 1876 the election in Louisiana was contested until the Compromise of 1877 resolved it in favor of Hayes.
|True
|-
|1968
|No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
|Theodore Roosevelt, the winner of the 1904 election, was a Republican former Vice President, but he had already risen to the Presidency in 1901 when McKinley died in office.
|True
|-
|1972
|Quakers can't win twice. ...Until Nixon did.
|The only Quaker president before Nixon was Herbert Hoover. Hoover only served one term.
|True
|-
|1976
|No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
|From its statehood in 1912 to 1972, New Mexico had been a reliable bellwether state. (The 1976 election is still, as of 2021, the only one where the winner of the popular vote did not take New Mexico.)
|True
|-
|1980
|No one has been elected President after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
|Reagan was the first divorced President.
|True
|-
|1984
|No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
|Reagan is one of 8 left-handed presidents (as of 2022). None of the 4 left-handed presidents prior to Reagan was reelected (James Garfield was assassinated in his first year in office, Gerald Ford was never elected at all, and Herbert Hoover and Harry Truman only served one full term each).
|True
|-
|1988
|No one with two middle names has become president. ...Until "Herbert Walker".
|George H. W. Bush is the first and to date only president with 2 middle names.
|True
|-
|1992
|No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
|The exact breakdown of the Catholic vote in each individual election is unknown until the advent of demographic-based exit polling, however Catholics have historically been strongly Democratic until 1968. In 1976, Carter won an estimated 54-57% of the Catholic vote, while in 1992 Bill Clinton only won 44% due to the independent campaign of Ross Perot.
|True
|-
|1996
|No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
|This refers to {{w|Bill Clinton}} and {{w|Bob Dole}}. However, their legal names are William Jefferson Clinton and Robert Joseph Dole. Their first names are William (worth 12 points) and Robert (worth 8 points), not Bill and Bob.
|
|-
|2000
|No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
|Vermont had voted for Republicans in every presidential election from 1856 (the first contested by the Republicans) to 1988, with the exception of 1964. George W. Bush was indeed the first Republican to win the presidency while losing Vermont.
|True
|-
|2004
|No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller. ...Until Bush did.
|John Kerry served for 4 months in the Vietnam war, while George Bush has no combat experience. John Kerry is 11 cm taller than George Bush which is actually about 4.3 inches, not 2. Assuming "two inches taller" means *at least* two inches taller and not *about* two inches taller, then Randall is correct.
|Maybe
|-
|2008
|No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
|Missouri had been a Democratic stronghold for the later half of the 19th century and was a {{w|Missouri bellwether|key bellwether state}} from 1904 to 2004. Obama is the first Democrat to win without Missouri, and 2008 is considered the year when Missouri ceased being a bellwether.
|True
|-
|2012?
|Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers.
|Barack Obama is 6' 1" (185 cm), and Mitt Romney is 6' 2" (188 cm). When Obama won, it broke the streak.
|...Until Obama did.
|-
|2012?
|No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost.
|This apparently refers only to major party nominees, as many third party and other nominees with a first name containing "K" have lost, such as {{w|Frank T. Johns}} of the Socialist Labor Party of America. Major party nominees with a "K" have won, such as Democrats Franklin Pierce, Franklin Roosevelt, and Barack Obama. If Romney had won, it would have broken the streak with respect to major party nominees, although not the streak as stated, which had already been broken with respect to all nominees.
|True
|-
|Title text
|No white guy who's been mentioned on Twitter has gone on to win.
|Twitter was founded in 2006; Barack Obama was the first president elected since its founding, and although he had been mentioned on Twitter prior to his election, he is not a white male and so did not break the streak. The streak was broken in 2016 when Donald Trump was elected.
|...Until Trump did.
|}

==Transcript==
:The problem with statements like
:"No <party> candidate has won the election without <state>"
:Or
:"No president has been reelected under <circumstances>"

:[Each statement below has its own panel. The year is in a caption, the precedent is stated by a standing Cueball in the main panel, and the president who broke it is below the panel.]
:1788... No one has been elected president before. ...But Washington was.
:1792... No incumbent has ever been reelected. ...Until Washington.
:1796... No one without false teeth has become president. ...But Adams did.
:1800... No challenger has beaten an incumbent. ...But Jefferson did.
:1804... No incumbent has beaten a challenger. ...Until Jefferson.
:1808... No congressman has ever become president. ...Until Madison.
:1812... No one can win without New York. ...But Madison did.
:1816... No candidate who doesn't wear a wig can get elected. ...Until Monroe was.
:1820... No one who wears pants instead of breeches can be reelected. ...But Monroe was.
:1824... No one has ever won without a popular majority. ...J.Q. Adams did.
:1828... Only people from Massachusetts and Virginia can win. ...Until Jackson did.
:1832... The only presidents who get reelected are Virginians. ...Until Jackson.
:1836... New Yorkers always lose. ...Until Van Buren.
:1840... No one over 65 has won the presidency. ...Until Harrison did.
:1844... No one who's lost his home state has won. ...But Polk did.
:1848... As goes Mississippi, so goes the nation. ...Until 1848.
:1852... New England Democrats can't win. ...Until Pierce did.
:1856... No one can become president without getting married. ...Until Buchanan did.
:1860... No one over 6'3" can get elected. ...Until Lincoln.
:1864... No one with a beard has been reelected. ...But Lincoln was.
:1868... No one can be president if their parents are alive. ...Until Grant.
:1872... No one with a beard has been reelected in peacetime. ...Until Grant was.
:1876... No one can win a majority of the popular vote and still lose. ...Tilden did.
:1880... As goes California, so goes the nation. ...Until it went Hancock.
:1884... Candidates named "James" can't lose. ...Until James Blaine.
:1888... No sitting president has been beaten since the Civil War. ...Cleveland was.
:1892... No former president has been elected. ...Until Cleveland.
:1896... Tall Midwesterners are unbeatable. ...Bryan wasn't.
:1900... No Republican shorter than 5'8" has been reelected. ...Until McKinley was.
:1904... No one under 45 has been elected. ...Roosevelt did.
:1908... No Republican who hasn't served in the military has won. ...Until Taft.
:[The precedent takes up the entire panel this year. Consequently, there is no Cueball.] 1912... After Lincoln beat the Democrats while sporting a beard with no mustache, the only Democrats who can win have a mustache with no beard. ...Wilson had neither.
:1916... No Democrat has won while losing West Virginia. ...Wilson did.
:1920... No incumbent senator has won. ...Until Harding.
:1924... No one with two Cs in their name has become president. ...Until Calvin Coolidge.
:1928... No one who got ten million votes has lost. ...Until Al Smith.
:1932... No Democrat has won since women secured the right to vote. ...Until FDR did.
:1936... No president's been reelected with double-digit unemployment. ...Until FDR was.
:1940... No one has won a third term. ...Until FDR did.
:1944... No Democrat has won during wartime. ...Until FDR did.
:1948... Democrats can't win without Alabama. ...Truman did.
:1952... No Republican has won without winning the House or Senate. ...Eisenhower did.
:1956... No one can beat the same nominee a second time in a leap year rematch. ...Until Eisenhower.
:1960... Catholics can't win. ...Until Kennedy.
:1964... Every Republican who's taken Louisiana has won. ...Until Goldwater.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1968... No Republican vice president has risen to the Presidency through an election. ...Until Nixon.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1972... Quakers can't win twice. ...Until Nixon did.
:1976... No one who lost New Mexico has won. ...But Carter did.
:1980... No one has been elected president after a divorce. ...Until Reagan was.
:1984... No left-handed president has been reelected. ...Until Reagan was.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1988... No one with two middle names has become president. ...Until "Herbert Walker".
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 1992... No Democrat has won without a majority of the Catholic vote. ...Until Clinton did.
:[The precedent takes up the entire panel this year. Consequently, there is no Cueball.] 1996... No Dem. incumbent without combat experience has beaten someone whose first name is worth more in Scrabble. ...Until Bill beat Bob.
:2000... No Republican has won without Vermont. ...Until Bush did.
:[The panel is zoomed in on Cueball's head in this frame.] 2004... No Republican without combat experience has beaten someone two inches taller ...Until Bush did.
:2008... No Democrat can win without Missouri. ...Until Obama did.
:[This year has two panels.] 2012... [Panel one] Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers. [Panel two] No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost. [Text under panels] Which streak will break?

[[Category:Comics featuring Ronald Reagan]]

==Trivia/Errors==
* There was an error in the original 1800 panel of the comic, as Jefferson (not Adams) was the first challenger to beat an incumbent, when Jefferson beat then-president Adams in 1800. This was later corrected.

* The first president without a wig was technically Washington, who did not wear a wig, but in fact powdered his hair white.

* Although Theodore Roosevelt became the first president under age 45 and was later elected president, he was not elected before the age of 45.

* Also, one of the statements of a streak for the 2012 elections can be considered wrong: in 1952, the Republican candidate/running mate Eisenhower/Nixon defeated the Democratic alliterative ticket Stevenson/Sparkman (in what can only be described as a landslide). The comic has been changed, and now reads "Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers" as the streak which would have the Republican ticket as the winners.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with lowercase text]] 
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Statistics]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Elections]]
[[Category:Comics featuring John F. Kennedy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring politicians]]